Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanieK  You commented to the OP on the original conversation
You were not a party to this particular conversation that was going on last night.
See there again, the "jumping to conclusion " was not directed at you. It was a general statement, I had finished with my comment to you.
Are we all clear now?
sheeeeeesh |
"I was not commenting on what you had said. ...It seems that at this point everyone is just jumping to the conclusions that everything that is said is directed at them personally. Which is not the case."
So sorry for misunderstanding. You'd addressed me directly in response to something I'd said...given the overall vagueness of your responses, I'm sure you can understand how it's easy to misunderstand. Regardless to who you truly menat for, my name was mentioned in a certain context which you have now confirmed
3 times.
I'm sorry, to keep responding, but I feel the need to defend myself (heaven only knows why!) because I feel as if my intent is being purposely miscontrued to serve some other agenda. Yes, I posted early in the thread, and like I do with most threads I post in, I tend to follow them as the conversation progresses, just as I did with this one. I did post again this morning in a manner that I thought was and intended to be very neutral--stating that what had been said that had upset so many was not that big a deal, that it was being blown out of proportion and *trying* to draw attention back to the original purpose of this thread. And now suddenly because of someone else's response, I'm being 'patted on the back 'and 'coming out of the woodwork' to participate in a petty arguement that you feel is on a "personal level."
Yes, to answer your question, we are "all clear now." It is perfectly "clear" that I should have never tried to be the voice of reason to get people to see that we are all on the same page as far as the OP's dog is concerned. But hey, at least we can agree on how ridiculous this whole thing has gotten.
