HH- “Ruby stated above that people just change and that she must accept this. She's also stated that the GM abandoned her. Clearly it has nothing to do with her own approach to people. It's other people's faults, not her own.”

There is NOTHING clearly about it. People change when they get sick of dealing with someone's personality & that fault begins with her.

Eskie- “GM abandoning her is nothing more than her own delusional thinking....again, the fault begins with her delusional thinking & her behaviors he didn't want to put up with any more. Yea, typical not taking responsibility for ones own behaviors that start the mess in the first place.”

Ruby- “I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to HH's post saying that I never done anything wrong and that it's always the GM's fault. That sounded sarcastic although I had to read it twice to realize it's sarcastic.”

Interpretation of written language here is interesting. I also took HH’s comment to be sarcasm because of her word “clearly”. Eskie did not take it as sarcasm, she saw it as literal defense of Ruby, as though stating an opinion that ‘clearly Ruby is not to blame for anything rather it’s all other’s faults’. HH then clarified that she was merely restating Ruby’s opinions without judgment. So her use of the word “clearly” was a kind of second-hand sarcasm, it was her restating Ruby’s opinion that we all see as faulty. Ruby sees it “clearly”, we don’t. It’s still sarcasm? I’m confused now.

I read it as sarcasm, too, due to the word “clearly”. But, see how subtle language is? And, also to point out to you, Ruby, you do have a working “intention sniffer” (I love this, unaluna!).

I am not implying HH’s intention was sarcasm. She says it wasn’t. I’m just saying how language interpretation is very subtle, and written language here where we are not speaking and seeing facial expressions is even harder!