Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: The Nature of Christian Love

Expand Messages
  • Jim Stuart
    Dear Jim R., You have not replied to my post 3057 of 30th April. Is this because: (a) You failed to notice the post in the large influx of posts over the last
    Message 1 of 6 , May 1, 2006
      Dear Jim R.,

      You have not replied to my post 3057 of 30th April.

      Is this because:

      (a) You failed to notice the post in the large influx of posts over the last
      few days;
      (b) You noticed it, meant to reply, but then forgot;
      (c) Your read it, and thought this is a tiresome, pedantic, uninspiring post
      that is not worth replying to;
      (d) Your read it, and thought I've covered this question in my previous
      posts and I don't want to repeat myself, so I won't reply;
      or
      (e) Your read it, thought it was a good question, and did not reply because
      you could not think how to answer it or because you are still working on
      your reply.

      Please be brutally honest - a one character reply will be fine - I just like
      to know how my posts are being received.

      Yours,

      Jim Stuart
    • Jim Stuart
      Thank you for your clarification, Jim. Yes, I had taken your post 3061 as a reply to Mederick. Jim Stuart ... From: To:
      Message 2 of 6 , May 1, 2006
        Thank you for your clarification, Jim.
        Yes, I had taken your post 3061 as a reply to Mederick.
        Jim Stuart


        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "<none>" <jamesrovira@...>
        To: <kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:55 PM
        Subject: Re: [Kierkegaardian] Re: The Nature of Christian Love


        > Jim S -- I did reply to your post 3057, but I didn't include your name in
        my reply, or your post, so there was no way you could identify my post as a
        reply.
        >
        > See my post 3061. If you look at your post 3057 on the Kierkegaardian's
        webpage, you will see my post 3061 underneath it as a response.
        >
        > Thanks, and sorry about that.
        >
        > Jim R.
      • Médéric Laitier
        Should I read a rascally* reference to my icky nature, James? * Modern meaning of rascal applying
        Message 3 of 6 , May 1, 2006
          Should I read a rascally* reference to my icky nature, James?


          * Modern meaning of rascal applying


          --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Stuart" <jimstuart@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > Thank you for your clarification, Jim.
          > Yes, I had taken your post 3061 as a reply to Mederick.
          > Jim Stuart
          >
        • Jim Stuart
          No, no rascally reference was intended. Purely a careless typo on my part. Sorry about that, Médéric. I realized as soon as I d hit the send button that I d
          Message 4 of 6 , May 1, 2006
            No, no rascally reference was intended. Purely a careless typo on my part.
            Sorry about that, Médéric. I realized as soon as I'd hit the send button
            that I'd spelt your name wrong.

            Jim


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Médéric Laitier" <hidepark21@...>
            To: <kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 6:57 PM
            Subject: [Kierkegaardian] Re: The Nature of Christian Love


            > Should I read a rascally* reference to my icky nature, James?
            >
            >
            > * Modern meaning of rascal applying
            >
            >
            > --- In kierkegaardians@yahoogroups.com, "Jim Stuart" <jimstuart@...>
            > wrote:
            > >
            > > Thank you for your clarification, Jim.
            > > Yes, I had taken your post 3061 as a reply to Mederick.
            > > Jim Stuart
            > >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.