[deleted]

So your saying that deleted apologies do not rise to the level of full apologies or that they are merely illusions of said apologies. You’re obviously out of your depth here or have some kind of inchoate fetish that misses the point of apologizing in the first place. If the issue here is the level of your professed sorrow it’s clear to me that you have been ambiguous in your approach. If rather, you intended to simply distract us with feigned sincereity, I question your motives.
Best, jim
 
Jim, Say what? I need some of whatever wine (or steroids?) you are guzzling.

On another topic, I'm still salivating as I hark back to our recent visit to La Ciccia. Lorella only laughed when I told her she needed to open a satellite spot back where I come from. La Ciccia really resonates somehow.

. . . . Pete
 
Pete,
I’ll be there the end of this month - I don’t get there near enough.
As for my response, well, it wasn’t aimed at you.
Best, jim
 
I guess I need to read more of the board than I do so as to avoid missing so many of the nuances and references.

. . . . Pete
 
originally posted by Florida Jim:
So your saying that deleted apologies do not rise to the level of full apologies or that they are merely illusions of said apologies. You’re obviously out of your depth here or have some kind of inchoate fetish that misses the point of apologizing in the first place. If the issue here is the level of your professed sorrow it’s clear to me that you have been ambiguous in your approach. If rather, you intended to simply distract us with feigned sincereity, I question your motives.
Best, jim
Click to expand...

Jim, you ignorant slut, you've clearly dropped the ball on this one. By overlooking the importance of the ellipses in Pete's apologia you've ignored the meta-textual implications thereof. For instance, why three? Is this a conscious sop for the neo-classicist grammarians? Or rather might it be a sly allusion to the postings of a certain wine critic? By not being more explicit, he leaves open several of these possibilities. In summary, Pete's poast is a postmodern masterpiece, not to be lightly dismissed in such a cavalier way.

Mark Lipton
 
Cites, Mark, cites.

Is a poast a posted picture of a roast? Or a roasted post? Is Pete's post therefore a poast, by virtue of the group's response? Or a merely a post, sans roast?

Deep waters.
 
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Florida Jim:
So your saying that deleted apologies do not rise to the level of full apologies or that they are merely illusions of said apologies. You’re obviously out of your depth here or have some kind of inchoate fetish that misses the point of apologizing in the first place. If the issue here is the level of your professed sorrow it’s clear to me that you have been ambiguous in your approach. If rather, you intended to simply distract us with feigned sincereity, I question your motives.
Best, jim
Click to expand...

Jim, you ignorant slut, you've clearly dropped the ball on this one. By overlooking the importance of the ellipses in Pete's apologia you've ignored the meta-textual implications thereof. For instance, why three? Is this a conscious sop for the neo-classicist grammarians? Or rather might it be a sly allusion to the postings of a certain wine critic? By not being more explicit, he leaves open several of these possibilities. In summary, Pete's poast is a postmodern masterpiece, not to be lightly dismissed in such a cavalier way.

Mark Lipton
Click to expand...
Never mind.
Best, jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top