Comments on: It's Miss Woodhouse's Turn

By: Karen 2L

Karen 2L — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:05:54 +0000

Well, as I said, it’s best I don’t know what people are talking about. I’m not one for conspiracy theories anyway. Only one shooter, and yes, Neil Armstrong did land on the moon.

By: Reeba

Reeba — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:08:00 +0000

Please note my point and don't ignore that I said; The discussion could have carried on at any point why wait for the command. It’s not a question of course.

By: I. Miller

I. Miller — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:04:27 +0000

I was not involved in any such coordination. I just like this film. And this book.

By: Reeba

Reeba — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:56:24 +0000

PPS: LOL!! It's not the being ignored that I am pointing at but - the co-ordinated attempt The discussion could have carried on at any point why wait for the command. It's not a question of course. I am just attempting to make all my points come out the way I mean them to instead of causing confusion.

By: Reeba

Reeba — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:13:52 +0000

PS: I cannot do without these

That I was really interested in discussing can be seen from my posts.
I had a lot to say about the merits and demerits of the films under discussion.

By: Karenlee

Karenlee — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:44:14 +0000

Well, I do think Karen2L that, up until my very latest post, the discussion (although sometimes tedious) actually [i]was[/i] mostly about Jane Austen and her adaptations, and now I’m heartily sorry I made that post. It was just this morning that I jumped – perhaps too quickly – to the conclusion that Reeba was someone who I had problems with in another community, and who had found her way to Austenblog and was now having fun giving me shit. But that aside, that kind of personal confrontation has no place on Austenblog. I apologize for whatever I posted here that contributed to it.

By: Reeba

Reeba — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:30:42 +0000

A word with you Karanlee (?) etc. and other blog readers. I feel I cannot leave here without resolving what happened here and be labelled as one wanting to bring a fight from another blog here. What followed after your command in post #95 was telling - you commanded and they came!! I would have to be stupid to think this normal. I would love to announce 'come on guys let's start a discussion.' and have a whole lot of posts turn up. I haven't seen your name around here to command this kind of popularity. If people go back they will see a coordinated attempt at ignoring me, even though I joined in too as one of the 'guys' only to realise I wasn't, of course. If you take me up on a point and I refute it, either be ready to refute my point or as before ignore me if you don't approve of my way. I did well expressing myself when being ignored. Those who came later like Amy Catherine and are wondering, then they should go back and see what happened, even before post#95. So I leave here, objecting to be considered as one who wanted anything else but discussion. The trump card was played at the end - for everyone to see by the one commanding. For me the issue is clear as to what happened and I am sure the intelligence of other readers will not miss glaring points like I have mentioned. ¨This post was meant as a closure for me!

By: Karen 2L

Karen 2L — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:18:37 +0000

Mags, unfortunately most of this tedious discussion has nothing at all to do with Jane Austen or her adaptations … or at least it’s been so well coded that I have no idea what’s going on. Maybe that’s for the best.

By: Reeba

Reeba — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:55:30 +0000

Amy Catherine, why would you ask me such a leading question?
It will lead to trouble again

By: Reeba

Reeba — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:37:07 +0000

I wonder if we’ll reach #200 yet`!

6 more to go.
If others join in to express their remorse we might reach that point yet.