- https://bit.ly/3oxpRBU
- https://bit.ly/3pzdiWb
- https://bit.ly/3rK21VG
- https://bit.ly/3pBECDa
- https://bit.ly/3rGvf7F
- https://bit.ly/3dureLq
- https://bit.ly/3osRbBk
- https://bit.ly/3DxGf9J
- https://bit.ly/31u4clB
- https://bit.ly/3oxpXJM
- https://bit.ly/303BPd3
- And where on earth did you get the notion that somehow I opposed couples who do things alike or together? I hate to imagine a world where most couples didn't make some effort to share some interests. I imagine this came from your fervid "fact" machine.
- Some of the other responses to my post made salient points and I tried to admit it and respond to them with more respect than I presumably did during my last post. On yours, I didn't bother for reasons that are fairly obvious.
- Yours,
- Carrie
- by a Taken In Hand reader on 2006 Aug 1 - 09:55 | reply to this comment
- Response
- Dear Sarah:
- First of all, may I gently suggest that there is a difference between misunderstanding a concept and just having a different interpretation. It is true that I have a different interpretation of taken in hand and it is obviously not your own. However, I do feel I have a right to an opinion, even if it does not comport in everyway with your own.
- As for future postings, that is not a problem since I never really intended to post more than once. This is not a case of me getting insulted and slamming out the cyber door. I have no reason to. As I said before, no one censored my work or told me I couldn't post. Again, I never intended to post more than once and never would have again except for these responses. Right now I'm busy with a law practice, children, a husband [darn, he burned that oven mitt again; I'm going to have to take him in hand]. Well, you can see I'm busy. So, not a problem.
- Yours,
- Carrie
- by a Taken In Hand reader on 2006 Aug 1 - 10:12 | reply to this comment