The first line is answering the first question (RE CES and "alignment-relevant").In post 399, Fenchurch wrote:Wenna - that's a lot of general description without anything specific. CES even said he was most interested in how you see me as 'twisting' but you only specify Postie in your response. What is it that puts me at the top of your suspicions?
The second line answers the second question (RE Fenchurch).
The third line re-answers the second question (RE Fenchurch).
The fourth line is re-considering/re-answering the first question (RE CES).
The fifth line is attempting to say something alignment-relevant about being "cunning" and "twisting" (RE Fenchurch, CES and "alignment-relevant")
The sixth line is answering the third question (RE Postie).
I may have only mentioned Postie by name, but I believe that it is all clearly inferred, and the response turned out to be weighted in line with CES's interest: Fenchurch, CES, Postie. I only said one line about Postie - most of it was about Fenchurch.
This is also sort of what I mean by Fenchurch "twisting". Whilst it is correct that I only mention Postie by name, I said a lot about "twisting", which related directly to Fenchurch/CES's question about Fenchurch. There have been a lot of instances of this sort of thing, and that is why Fenchurch is top of my suspicions.