On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:36:58 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2016-06-10 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
> >>
> >> On 2016-06-10 8:41 AM, Bruce wrote:
> >>> In article >,
> >>> says...
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2016-06-09 9:57 PM, sf wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 20:19:32 -0400, Dave Smith
> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Having her in my killfille is not very effective when other people reply
> >>>>>> to her and include her quoted text. You have to admit there is way too
> >>>>>> much material in there to ignore.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You can always KF the subjects of threads she initiates or when they
> >>>>> turn into "all about Julie" threads - meaning people are just baiting
> >>>>> her into responding so they can be mean back at her.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> People bait Julie????? Holy Crap. You can't be serious. Julie has a
> >>>> habit of throwing herself into the firing line by blurting out the most
> >>>> bizarre things and then keeps throwing in lies to try to explain or
> >>>> justify. Nobody baits her.
> >>>
> >>> You complain about too much Julie content, but you produce a large part
> >>> of it.
> >>>
> >> Yeah yeah yeah, but I notice that you could not present an argument that
> >> I was wrong.
> >
> > I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
> > endless bickering that follows everything she says.
> >
>
>
> Seriously??? You have not seen any of Julie's bizarre comments or
> realized that she is lying? This is a woman who had previously posted
> about her husband stopping to eat supper on the way home and later
> denied that she had posted that. She had claimed to be a writer but
> later denied being a writer, denied having claimed that she was a
> writer. When someone (not me) dug up her old posts with the claim that
> she was a writer she said she didn't remember posting that. She had
> problems in a store with some guy wearing a turban hassled her with a
> broom. I don't remember if that is the same store where the birds are
> always getting into the bread on the lower shelves. The list of lies
> and bizarre claims and denials is long.

Why do you care so much?

--

sf

On 2016-06-10 4:56 PM, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 6/10/2016 3:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-06-10 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
>>> endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>>>
>> Seriously??? You have not seen any of Julie's bizarre comments or
>> realized that she is lying? This is a woman who had previously posted
>> about her husband stopping to eat supper on the way home and later
>> denied that she had posted that. She had claimed to be a writer but
>> later denied being a writer, denied having claimed that she was a
>> writer. When someone (not me) dug up her old posts with the claim that
>> she was a writer she said she didn't remember posting that. She had
>> problems in a store with some guy wearing a turban hassled her with a
>> broom. I don't remember if that is the same store where the birds are
>> always getting into the bread on the lower shelves. The list of lies
>> and bizarre claims and denials is long.
>>
> Do you just cut and paste that rant?

Is it not accurate?

On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:36:58 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2016-06-10 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2016-06-10 8:41 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2016-06-09 9:57 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 20:19:32 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having her in my killfille is not very effective when other people reply
>>>>>>>> to her and include her quoted text. You have to admit there is way too
>>>>>>>> much material in there to ignore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can always KF the subjects of threads she initiates or when they
>>>>>>> turn into "all about Julie" threads - meaning people are just baiting
>>>>>>> her into responding so they can be mean back at her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People bait Julie????? Holy Crap. You can't be serious. Julie has a
>>>>>> habit of throwing herself into the firing line by blurting out the most
>>>>>> bizarre things and then keeps throwing in lies to try to explain or
>>>>>> justify. Nobody baits her.
>>>>>
>>>>> You complain about too much Julie content, but you produce a large part
>>>>> of it.
>>>>>
>>>> Yeah yeah yeah, but I notice that you could not present an argument that
>>>> I was wrong.
>>>
>>> I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
>>> endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Seriously??? You have not seen any of Julie's bizarre comments or
>> realized that she is lying? This is a woman who had previously posted
>> about her husband stopping to eat supper on the way home and later
>> denied that she had posted that. She had claimed to be a writer but
>> later denied being a writer, denied having claimed that she was a
>> writer. When someone (not me) dug up her old posts with the claim that
>> she was a writer she said she didn't remember posting that. She had
>> problems in a store with some guy wearing a turban hassled her with a
>> broom. I don't remember if that is the same store where the birds are
>> always getting into the bread on the lower shelves. The list of lies
>> and bizarre claims and denials is long.
>
> Why do you care so much?
>
You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
strange tales?

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:45:56 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> > I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
> > endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>
> How about the multiple hundred reply "all about Julie" thread that
> someone started when she wasn't even posting to rfc?

Yes, a very bizarre addiction.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:45:56 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
>> endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>
> How about the multiple hundred reply "all about Julie" thread that
> someone started when she wasn't even posting to rfc?

But *I* didn't do that. Dave is implying that all I do is make up lies. I am
not the one who is lying. They make up stuff about me and reply to each
other as though it were true.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:36:58 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-06-10 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2016-06-10 8:41 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2016-06-09 9:57 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2016 20:19:32 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having her in my killfille is not very effective when other people
>>>>>>>>> reply
>>>>>>>>> to her and include her quoted text. You have to admit there is way
>>>>>>>>> too
>>>>>>>>> much material in there to ignore.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can always KF the subjects of threads she initiates or when
>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> turn into "all about Julie" threads - meaning people are just
>>>>>>>> baiting
>>>>>>>> her into responding so they can be mean back at her.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People bait Julie????? Holy Crap. You can't be serious. Julie has
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> habit of throwing herself into the firing line by blurting out the
>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>> bizarre things and then keeps throwing in lies to try to explain or
>>>>>>> justify. Nobody baits her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You complain about too much Julie content, but you produce a large
>>>>>> part
>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yeah yeah yeah, but I notice that you could not present an argument
>>>>> that
>>>>> I was wrong.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
>>>> endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Seriously??? You have not seen any of Julie's bizarre comments or
>>> realized that she is lying? This is a woman who had previously posted
>>> about her husband stopping to eat supper on the way home and later
>>> denied that she had posted that. She had claimed to be a writer but
>>> later denied being a writer, denied having claimed that she was a
>>> writer. When someone (not me) dug up her old posts with the claim that
>>> she was a writer she said she didn't remember posting that. She had
>>> problems in a store with some guy wearing a turban hassled her with a
>>> broom. I don't remember if that is the same store where the birds are
>>> always getting into the bread on the lower shelves. The list of lies
>>> and bizarre claims and denials is long.
>>
>> Why do you care so much?
>>
> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
> strange tales?

What was strange about any of those things? Nothing. Except for the lies
that you wove in there.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:07:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
> >
> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
> strange tales?

I've see blatant misrepresentations of what she said. They twist it,
and she clarifies. That's baiting.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:07:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
>> >
>> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
>> strange tales?
>
> I've see blatant misrepresentations of what she said. They twist it,
> and she clarifies. That's baiting.

Yes.

On 2016-06-10 7:28 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:07:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
>> strange tales?
>
> I've see blatant misrepresentations of what she said. They twist it,
> and she clarifies. That's baiting.
>


Like when she said that she was a writer, and then later said that she
was not a writer, and that she never said that she was a writer... and
then some looked up her old posts and found several where she had indeed
claimed to have been a writer?? There are lots of examples of that sort
of lying.

On 6/10/2016 6:19 PM, Bruce wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:45:56 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
>>> endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>>
>> How about the multiple hundred reply "all about Julie" thread that
>> someone started when she wasn't even posting to rfc?
>
> Yes, a very bizarre addiction.
>

Her "Fie on Walmart" generated 721 follow ups. People complain about
Julie but just love to tag along.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2016-06-10 7:28 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:07:26 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
>>> strange tales?
>>
>> I've see blatant misrepresentations of what she said. They twist it,
>> and she clarifies. That's baiting.
>>
>
>
> Like when she said that she was a writer, and then later said that she was
> not a writer, and that she never said that she was a writer... and then
> some looked up her old posts and found several where she had indeed
> claimed to have been a writer?? There are lots of examples of that sort of
> lying.

I never said that Dave. Or you took something I said out of context. Think
about it Dave. What are we all doing here? Writing! Hahahahaha! I may have
said that I was not currently seeking publication or not writing for a
living or something to that extent. Fact is I have written countless poems,
short stories, completed one novel and have two others partially written. I
may continue writing one at some point. The other two seem stale to me now
and I have lost interest.

On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:05:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2016-06-10 7:28 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:07:26 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
> >>>
> >> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
> >> strange tales?
> >
> > I've see blatant misrepresentations of what she said. They twist it,
> > and she clarifies. That's baiting.
> >
>
>
> Like when she said that she was a writer, and then later said that she
> was not a writer, and that she never said that she was a writer... and
> then some looked up her old posts and found several where she had indeed
> claimed to have been a writer?? There are lots of examples of that sort
> of lying.

I never even noticed when she said it and if I did, I didn't pay
attention the first time or even the second time she said she was a
writer (if there was one). I only noticed when a few regulars started
badgering her about something insignificant, continually bringing it
up ever since... and you (plural) still can't let it go. Chillax,
man! You're going to put yourself back in the hospital. It was just
a little poem some website put online and she was proud of herself.
No reason to act like she claimed to be a poet laureate.

--

sf

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:45:56 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
>> I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
>> endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>
> How about the multiple hundred reply "all about Julie" thread that
> someone started when she wasn't even posting to rfc?

Even when she isn't here! I remember one poster was still bitching about
her 9 hours after she last posted!!!

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2016-06-10 7:28 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:07:26 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
>>>> strange tales?
>>>
>>> I've see blatant misrepresentations of what she said. They twist it,
>>> and she clarifies. That's baiting.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Like when she said that she was a writer, and then later said that she
>> was not a writer, and that she never said that she was a writer... and
>> then some looked up her old posts and found several where she had indeed
>> claimed to have been a writer?? There are lots of examples of that sort
>> of lying.
>
> I never said that Dave. Or you took something I said out of context. Think
> about it Dave. What are we all doing here? Writing! Hahahahaha! I may have
> said that I was not currently seeking publication or not writing for a
> living or something to that extent. Fact is I have written countless
> poems, short stories, completed one novel and have two others partially
> written. I may continue writing one at some point. The other two seem
> stale to me now and I have lost interest.

You do know that our 'super copier' will now dig out anything you have ever
said and post them ad nauseam, even though they are out of context???

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2016-06-10 7:28 PM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:07:26 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
>>>>> strange tales?
>>>>
>>>> I've see blatant misrepresentations of what she said. They twist it,
>>>> and she clarifies. That's baiting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Like when she said that she was a writer, and then later said that she
>>> was not a writer, and that she never said that she was a writer... and
>>> then some looked up her old posts and found several where she had indeed
>>> claimed to have been a writer?? There are lots of examples of that sort
>>> of lying.
>>
>> I never said that Dave. Or you took something I said out of context.
>> Think about it Dave. What are we all doing here? Writing! Hahahahaha! I
>> may have said that I was not currently seeking publication or not writing
>> for a living or something to that extent. Fact is I have written
>> countless poems, short stories, completed one novel and have two others
>> partially written. I may continue writing one at some point. The other
>> two seem stale to me now and I have lost interest.
>
> You do know that our 'super copier' will now dig out anything you have
> ever said and post them ad nauseam, even though they are out of context???

Probably. I can't be responsible for what he does though. That's on him. And
it would seem that everyone is onto him.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 04:45:56 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
>>> endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>>
>> How about the multiple hundred reply "all about Julie" thread that
>> someone started when she wasn't even posting to rfc?
>
> Even when she isn't here! I remember one poster was still bitching about
> her 9 hours after she last posted!!!

That was truly sad.

On 2016-06-11 1:59 AM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 21:05:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2016-06-10 7:28 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2016 18:07:26 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2016-06-10 5:53 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> You said that people bait her. How was she baited into telling those
>>>> strange tales?
>>>
>>> I've see blatant misrepresentations of what she said. They twist it,
>>> and she clarifies. That's baiting.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Like when she said that she was a writer, and then later said that she
>> was not a writer, and that she never said that she was a writer... and
>> then some looked up her old posts and found several where she had indeed
>> claimed to have been a writer?? There are lots of examples of that sort
>> of lying.
>
> I never even noticed when she said it and if I did, I didn't pay
> attention the first time or even the second time she said she was a
> writer (if there was one). I only noticed when a few regulars started
> badgering her about something insignificant, continually bringing it
> up ever since... and you (plural) still can't let it go. Chillax,
> man! You're going to put yourself back in the hospital. It was just
> a little poem some website put online and she was proud of herself.
> No reason to act like she claimed to be a poet laureate.
>

It is interesting that you didn't even notice but know the details.
That was just one of many things she has said that were less than
truthful, one of many claims made and then denied.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:48:41 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> It is interesting that you didn't even notice but know the details.

How can I not know the details when you and others rehash them so
often?

> That was just one of many things she has said that were less than
> truthful, one of many claims made and then denied.

Why do you (and others) care so much?

--

sf

On 2016-06-11 2:08 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:48:41 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> It is interesting that you didn't even notice but know the details.
>
> How can I not know the details when you and others rehash them so
> often?
>

You said you didn't pay attention to it.


>> That was just one of many things she has said that were less than
>> truthful, one of many claims made and then denied.
>
> Why do you (and others) care so much?

Perhaps you have more tolerance than I have for liars. Perhaps you find
it interesting and amusing. I confess to having a low tolerance for
lying and stupidity.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 15:32:09 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Perhaps you have more tolerance than I have for liars. Perhaps you find
> it interesting and amusing. I confess to having a low tolerance for
> lying and stupidity.

No. I was the first to peg her as a narcissist, but I was degraded
and called names like bitch by the rest of for being honest. I took
care of my problem. Why don't you take care of yours? You were late
to the party, but you refuse to leave.

--

sf

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2016-06-11 2:08 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:48:41 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> It is interesting that you didn't even notice but know the details.
>>
>> How can I not know the details when you and others rehash them so
>> often?
>>
>
> You said you didn't pay attention to it.
>
>
>>> That was just one of many things she has said that were less than
>>> truthful, one of many claims made and then denied.
>>
>> Why do you (and others) care so much?
>
> Perhaps you have more tolerance than I have for liars. Perhaps you find it
> interesting and amusing. I confess to having a low tolerance for lying and
> stupidity.

You must dislike yourself.

On 6/10/2016 15:06, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-06-10 4:56 PM, S Viemeister wrote:
>> On 6/10/2016 3:36 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2016-06-10 2:45 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> I haven't noticed any bizarre things or lies, but I also don't read the
>>>> endless bickering that follows everything she says.
>>>>
>>> Seriously??? You have not seen any of Julie's bizarre comments or
>>> realized that she is lying? This is a woman who had previously posted
>>> about her husband stopping to eat supper on the way home and later
>>> denied that she had posted that. She had claimed to be a writer but
>>> later denied being a writer, denied having claimed that she was a
>>> writer. When someone (not me) dug up her old posts with the claim that
>>> she was a writer she said she didn't remember posting that. She had
>>> problems in a store with some guy wearing a turban hassled her with a
>>> broom. I don't remember if that is the same store where the birds are
>>> always getting into the bread on the lower shelves. The list of lies
>>> and bizarre claims and denials is long.
>>>
>> Do you just cut and paste that rant?
>
> Is it not accurate?

You didn't answer the question. You and Trump are quite alike in some
respects.

On 6/11/2016 6:52 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2016-06-11 2:08 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:48:41 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is interesting that you didn't even notice but know the details.
>>>
>>> How can I not know the details when you and others rehash them so
>>> often?
>>>
>>
>> You said you didn't pay attention to it.
>>
>>
>>>> That was just one of many things she has said that were less than
>>>> truthful, one of many claims made and then denied.
>>>
>>> Why do you (and others) care so much?
>>
>> Perhaps you have more tolerance than I have for liars. Perhaps you
>> find it interesting and amusing. I confess to having a low tolerance
>> for lying and stupidity.
>
> You must dislike yourself.

Bove again demonstrates her compulsive inability to refrain from inane
response(s), especially when unwarranted and unwise. Bove is incapable
of "silence", which in many ways says a whole bunch (of grapes with
black widows?)!

Sky

================================
Kitchen Rule #1 - Use the timer!
Kitchen Rule #2 - Cook's choice!
================================

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 3:31:10 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-06-11 2:08 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 08:48:41 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> It is interesting that you didn't even notice but know the details.
> >
> > How can I not know the details when you and others rehash them so
> > often?
> >
>
> You said you didn't pay attention to it.
>
>
> >> That was just one of many things she has said that were less than
> >> truthful, one of many claims made and then denied.
> >
> > Why do you (and others) care so much?
>
> Perhaps you have more tolerance than I have for liars. Perhaps you find
> it interesting and amusing. I confess to having a low tolerance for
> lying and stupidity.

I barely care whether people lie on Usenet. Really, if we're going
to get our panties in a bunch over people lying on the Internet, we'll
never be able to sit in comfort. I wouldn't tolerate lying in my
friends, but people on Usenet are not really friends. They're like
people you bump into at a cocktail party or around the water cooler
at work.

What gets me is her persistent and proud resistance to logic and/or
alleviation of her ignorance.

Cindy Hamilton

In article >,
says...
>
> I barely care whether people lie on Usenet. Really, if we're going
> to get our panties in a bunch over people lying on the Internet, we'll
> never be able to sit in comfort. I wouldn't tolerate lying in my
> friends, but people on Usenet are not really friends. They're like
> people you bump into at a cocktail party or around the water cooler
> at work.
>
> What gets me is her persistent and proud resistance to logic and/or
> alleviation of her ignorance.

So you don't care of cocktail party people lie, but they'd better not
resist alleviation of their ignorance! I guess everybody's entitled to
their own agenda.

On 2016-06-11 11:21 PM, Sky wrote:

>>> Perhaps you have more tolerance than I have for liars. Perhaps you
>>> find it interesting and amusing. I confess to having a low tolerance
>>> for lying and stupidity.
>>
>> You must dislike yourself.
>
> Bove again demonstrates her compulsive inability to refrain from inane
> response(s), especially when unwarranted and unwise. Bove is incapable
> of "silence", which in many ways says a whole bunch (of grapes with
> black widows?)!

She also demonstrated her keen wit with her elementary schoolyard
response. I expected more from a published writer.