Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 4 days agoSo 5 stars thenlemmy.dbzer0.comimagemessage-square29fedilinkarrow-up1558arrow-down14
arrow-up1554arrow-down1imageSo 5 stars thenlemmy.dbzer0.comStamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com to Funny@sh.itjust.works · 4 days agomessage-square29fedilink
minus-square__反いじめ戦隊@ani.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·edit-24 days agoMines, or Agnew’s response? I reworded Agnew’s response because I misread it as if a client used es ex-spouse’s account to write the review [in es behalf], and not that the losing ex-spouse wrote this scathing review.
minus-squareIlovethebomb@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up21arrow-down1·4 days agoYour version was worse, I understood the original just fine.
minus-square__反いじめ戦隊@ani.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down6·4 days agoHow would u write it so my former confusion wouldn’t misread?
minus-squareIlovethebomb@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up5·4 days agoI’m not sure, it made sense to me.
minus-square__反いじめ戦隊@ani.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down5·edit-24 days agoIt didn’t to me at first read, and my upvoter. Now, if I was in a similar position, I would respond: Case No. #####, the poster above was an opponent that lost against my case against es.
Mines, or Agnew’s response?
I reworded Agnew’s response because I misread it as if a client used es ex-spouse’s account to write the review [in es behalf], and not that the losing ex-spouse wrote this scathing review.
Your version was worse, I understood the original just fine.
How would u write it so my former confusion wouldn’t misread?
I’m not sure, it made sense to me.
It didn’t to me at first read, and my upvoter.
Now, if I was in a similar position, I would respond: