--- In [email protected], "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > 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?
Why didn't Judy say, right from the start, "Yes, I commented on a film I had never seen. I did it because I already didn't like Mel Gibson, based on things I had read about him in the media, and thus I was pre- disposed to believe the author of the article I posted. In reality, of course, I know NOTHING about the movie in question, because I've never seen it." Years later, and she's STILL never been able to say that. It's just been equivocation and attempts to shift the blame and "get Barry" all the way down... > 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 the concerted attempt to convince people here that he had "changed." I and many others have never been convinced of this. His behavior on Fairfield Life was just as bullying and just as "confrontational" as everything we've heard of his past. His tantrums and long, solipsistic, NPD diatribes (up to five posts and thousands of words long) were exactly like his reported tantrums and diatribes back then. And the real bottom line is that his "I'm going to take my ball and go home" behavior were exactly like his behavior back then. When he couldn't stand the real- world criticism 25 years ago, he ran away and hid. When he couldn't stand the same kinds of criticisms on FFL, he did exactly the same thing. > 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. I think it's simpler than that, and less flattering to Judy. It's more like, "If you *liked* Clinton, you display intellectual dishonesty and give him a pass. If you *liked* Robin, you display intellectual dishonesty and give him a pass. If you have a real *crush* on Robin, you continue to defend him any way you can, months or years after he ran away to hide again." > The fact that Robin didn't own up to the whole picture > from the start, for me shows a lack of integrity. Ditto with Judy and the "Apocalypto" incident. The fact that she STILL can't bring herself to admit having commented on a film she's never seen indicates something very WRONG in the way her mind works. > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "seventhray27" steve.sundur@ > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "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. > > >
