sf wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 10:15:56 -0400, margaret suran
> <margaret@no.spam.for.me.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Of course, I still had my doubts and worries, until Michael actually
>> came to New York and I met him in person and saw that he was just fine,
>> at a much later time. :o)
>
> Margaret, I was reading and posting during that time.... but the
> thread was one that I ceased to read (I probably KFed the topic) when
> it went hysterical, so I managed to miss all that drama.
>
> IMO: that was a good thing.
>

It never went hysterical, it was just that Michael has many friends and
we all waited for some kind of good news about him.

Since he was gravely ill and could not post to the group and Steven had
his hands full with his job and with Michael, we were really happy when
Sarah started to give us the daily (almost daily) news bulletins about
Michael. Most were pretty grim, but if there was a ray of hope, Sarah
tried to insert it into her posts.

The devastating post was therefore completely unexpected. If I got
hysterical, nobody but Sarah saw it as it was not a post but an email to
her and it was more like a cry of anguish than a scream of hysteria. I
took the post for a true assessment of my friend's condition and I could
not bear the thought of losing him.

It is strange how someone's untimely death frees the memory of something
that happened such a long time ago and how the sadness of Sarah's death
is overshadowed by my feelings of gratitude for what she did.