Sometimes reading a post TWICE before replying to it is necessary

[Guest guest]

" bbtried " <bbtried wrote:

 

> It must be very difficult to know that there is an answer

> that could alleviate someone's suffering and feel honor

> bound not to discuss it until it is published. I'm not sure

> how I would deal with this, let alone how you should. I

> guess everyone has to decide for themselves.

 

That was a VAST presupposition (inaccurate by the way) and mind-read on

YOUR part Barb.

 

I suggest you re-read my original post and notice what I really did say.

 

Sincerely,

 

[Guest guest]

Doc, I will agree that it would have been better to have

said " let alone how anyone should. " I could and probably should

have been clearer.

 

The statement though as amended expresses my thoughts. Flawed,

maybe but mine.

 

Had I wished to explore this subject on this forum, I would

have cross-posted it. Even so, thank you for letting me know

that I need to express myself more clearly.

Sincerely,

barb(bbtried)

 

 

, " docspeed2001 "

<docspeed2001 wrote:

>

> " bbtried " <bbtried@> wrote:

>

> > It must be very difficult to know that there is an answer

> > that could alleviate someone's suffering and feel honor

> > bound not to discuss it until it is published. I'm not sure

> > how I would deal with this, let alone how you should. I

> > guess everyone has to decide for themselves.

>

> That was a VAST presupposition (inaccurate by the way) and mind-read on

> YOUR part Barb.

>

> I suggest you re-read my original post and notice what I really did say.

>

> Sincerely,

>

>