> her posts weren't signed...
No, not that one; but others sent around the same time were. Is that a problem?
> there was no content from her in the posts
But if what you know for a certainty is that you've only recently subbed to lbo, why is it that the first thing you assume, or refer to, is that I haven't ever given content to the discussion?
> and it was just a little joke, not an attack -
> her response was
> quite humlourless in that regard.
Here's what you wrote: "perhaps rc-am should come out of the closet a little and explain their position on refugee camps in Australia, rather than just posting Irish newspaper columns with inflammatory letters to the editor attached...)". Given that you had little basis for claiming that I hadn't explained my position on the camps, it read to me like you'd taken offense at what you described as "inflammatory", and went on to, in some instances, soften what you saw as an overly-critical response to Australian policy in the letter and article. In all honesty, I still can't see the little joke, there or in relation to the rest of your post.
Here's what I think happened: we find quite different things inflammatory. Tell me, in certain discussions, would you also find it inflammatory to be called 'humourless' for responding sans humour to something you really couldn't see as being funny in the first place?
Angela _________