| re: Rory With Bonnie | |
|
Posted by: |
The_wolf_with_the_red_roses 02:49 pm UTC 06/12/07 |
| In reply to: | re: Rory With Bonnie - pidunk 10:15 am UTC 06/12/07 |
| Right I was trying to amke peace then. I did not at one point try to affend you in thr pervious post. Sorry if you thihnk that I did but it was was not my intention. But oncve mpre you have discredited my opinion. And I will choose tp persove spngs the way I want them to. Not the way you want me to. > > > > Not wanting to stir things again. Bit I read all I can in > > that song. Mayber it differs from your perception of the > > song. But its my opinion. So please to not just mereley > > discredit it. > > > I am not discrediting your perception of the song. > However, you can't tell John Denver that he didn't write > Annie's Song for Annie. Yet married couples worldwide > dedicate that song to each other in bliss and joy within > their own unique loves. Have your meaning, and let me have > mine. > > > > > >But you are right. I do find I can relate > > that song to a past situation. Despite not believing you. > > I give you only logical constructs. You say, gee your > logic was right, but I don't believe you. One does not > have anything to do with another. There is only one > purpose served by repeating constantly that I am not to be > believed, and that has an agenda, and all agendas are > political. > > > > > > > BEcause I go with established fact. > > > You do not know established fact. You are nowhere where > you can know any established fact. It does not matter how > much you read if you misinterpret what you read, and it > does not matter how much of falsehoods you read if you > think false is fact. If you go with established fact, > sometime you wanted to know fact, or some connection > between you and the established fiction exists. I have no > time for you. > | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Rory With Bonnie - pidunk 10:15 am UTC 06/12/07 |
| Next: | re: Rory With Bonnie - pidunk 09:20 pm UTC 06/12/07 |
| Thread: |
|