--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Ann" wrote:
> Come on Steve, at least concede this point. You only look silly not to admit that it follows if someone said they had been "psychologically raped" by X then it follows that the accuser is saying X is a psychological rapist. To deny this is so makes it appear you either don't know that 1+1=2 or that you have no degree of rational, logical reasoning or that in your efforts to defend someone you are willing to look like a fool. Think about who we are dealing with Ann. Ms. Editor, Ms. Corrector, the person who insists on exactness, but who is willing to (attempt, at least) spin any situation to try to prove a point. Share did not say those words. Judy puts those words in quotes as though she did. To me there is a subtle difference between feeling that one was "psychologically raped", and calling someone a "psychological rapist" Of course your mileage may vary. That is fine. Certainly Judy, (and perhaps this is your take), feels that techincally there is no difference. I just see it differently. > Now on that note I am going to sleep. Fun is fun but tomorrow is another day and I am sure we will all have lots of fascinating examples of the human character to analyze and enjoy then. Good night to you.
