Why he didn't say, right from the start, "yes I have struck my students, and here's the context........"
Wouldn't that have made a lot more sense, than issuing a blanket denial? As I've said, and others as well, it's not about the hitting, it's about the cover up, or the "appearance" of lying. And that is why I think the comparison to Clinton is perfect. If you believe that oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you say Bill Clinton was lying. But if you don't think oral sex constitutes sexual relations, then you give him a pass. You hold your nose, but you give him a pass. The fact that Robin didn't own up to the whole picture from the start, for me shows a lack of integrity. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" wrote: > > > > > He didn't lie. As he said: > > > > > > "I did not deny something I knew was true. I denied > > > what I was accused of." > > > > Hey Judy, can you flesh this out a little. Provide some > > examples where this would be a meaningful distinction? > > Not sure what you mean by "examples." As you know, it > refers to one specific situation, and the "meaningful > distinction" is inherent in the two sentences anyway. > > You can read them in full context in the repost I just > made of Robin's Open Letter. >
