See, Judy knows what we're all thinking. She "knows" that we all secretly agree with her, but since we can't admit it, we're all lying.
That is some funny shit Judy, but I guess it's one way to go through life. --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > I never called you a liar Judy. > > Well, ya know, Curtis, when you say you "trust > reasonable people to see through this obvious routine," > it's hard to interpret that any way but as an > accusation of lying. > > It's so *not* a routine. As I said, I *started out* by > making it clear I thought Willytex's remark was shitty. > I didn't change my mind several posts later. I never > suggested it was OK for him to have said what he said. > > If I say that professor in Alabama killing a bunch of > people was a reaction to her not getting tenure, is > that *defending* her? Especially if I started out by > saying it was a terrible, reprehensible crime? > > Get real. That isn't how it works. > > Again, what you're trying to avoid is the issue of > whether *your* remark was shitty, your "joke" about > Jackson's death. > > > I was defending myself against your claim that I was lying. > > And I'm not thinking that you are lying. I get that you > > believe what you are saying, just as I do. > > You know how I know you're lying? Because after I > quoted that first post, you could so easily have > excused yourself by saying you'd just forgotten what > I'd said to start with. But you were bent on pinning > the "defending Willytex" rap on me no matter what to > take the onus off your own remark, so you couldn't > concede that I wasn't. >
