In a message dated 3/7/01 1:46:56 PM Eastern Standard Time, wilsonfisk2@yahoo.com writes:

<< Oh, I have not come 'round. As you very well know. You have admitted that what I said was true, and that you knew all along what I was saying. What's more I think it was only my insistence on repeatedly replying and referring back to the actual wording of my/our posts that forced you to admit that. >>

Face it. You didn't say what you meant. No amount of backpedalling, spelling or grammatical corrections or twisted logic will change the facts. What you finally admitted, not I, was your specific intent in the use of a generalized term.

<<No, er it isn't. In fact your previosu assertation that I had to 'learn that others do not draw the line in the same place you do' indicates explictly that you knew I was using the word 'sex' to mean 'the act of sex', as you recognise the two seperate items between which lines could be drawn yourself.<<

Not at all. The line-drawing analogy refers to the generalized term 'sex', as you put forth without any clarification. As I made abundantly clear in our original discussion, just as one person will regard any reference to matters of a sexual nature as embarrassing and pornographic (ie: an unveiled woman in a middle-eastern country), another person won't regard something as pornographic until he or she sees a woman taking off her bikini top at a public beach. If you were referring to the ACT of sex by the repeated use of only the word "sex", you would have said so, at least once. As it stands, it was eventually left up to *me* to figure out and clarify that you were actually referring to the ACT of sex all along.

Leah