--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <lurkernomore20002000@...> wrote: <snip> > Raunchy, > You slandered Sal. I am sorry that I don't recall all the > details. You can look it up if you want.
You made the accusation. *You* should be the one to look it up to support the accusation. You should have looked it up, in fact, before you ever made it. Not just because that's the ethical thing to do, but because you would never have made the accusation if you had, and you'd have saved yourself the embarrassment of being wrong. > But I think it was generally acknowledged > that you made a factual representation, that you refused to > back down from even when confronted when clear evidence that > this was the case. Wrong, and wrong. Let's see if Steve backs down when he reads the post of raunchy's that I just reposted. > And if I recall the incident correctly, and I think I do, you > indicated that Sal was not worthy of an apology from you. You have that part correct. Of course, that involves opinion, not fact. I agree with raunchy: Sal has been so incredibly unpleasant here so often--as well as frequently getting her facts bollixed up--without ever making any apologies that she does not deserve to receive apologies from anybody. > So there you have it. > So, once again, talk about Judy's superior logic, talk about > Judy's trouncing her opponents in arguments, but please spare > me your pontificating about the need for unflinching honesty > when participating in a public forum. I am not seeing that > in the way you operate here. You are not seeing raunchy's unflinching honesty because you have a very poor memory and aren't willing to do your homework, so you see only what you want to see. I wouldn't call you dishonest per se in that regard, but I sure would say you significantly lack integrity.
