>It wasn't my intention to evade the points you made
I didnt think it was. I said you hadnt answered my points, but that isnt
the same as evasion
-- No, but I inferred it.
*
>made me think about what he might mean
so his meaning was not exactly _obvious_ was it
-- When I said Ian's meaning seemed obvious to me, I was referring to the
use of quotations. That's why it was in this one sentence: "Regarding the
quotation marks, I can’t respond any better than Michael -- Ian’s meaning
seemed and still seems obvious to me." Then I moved on to the matter of
reading and experience, where the phrase you quote comes in. Perhaps I
should've started a new paragraph. Or perhaps you should have read what I
wrote more carefully.
*
As an editor, the review struck me as appreciative, informed, relatively
brief, and readable and able to create an interest in Sheila's work. Isn't
that okay?
No. You're describing a clever advertisement
-- Now you're just being silly.
|