--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
> --- 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.
Thank you Judy. I knew you would chime in here. Here's the first
possible oint of contention, or parsing. What constitutes "slander".
Now Judy will say that "slander" is not the right term, and then we can
go on and on about that.
> 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.
Judy, I think you saved everyone (or at least me) a lot of time on the
whole matter by looking up, what you call Raunchy's apology in the post
you made a few minutes ago. If not an apology, it sure seems like she's
back tracking on something.
> > 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.
Judy, thank you. Bless you. This was all I wanted. I wanted the *.
You know "the importance of integrity and honesty on a public forum"*
*except when it doesn't apply. namely to people I think don't deserve
it.
Thank you again Judy. That is all I wanted to hear.
> > 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.
Judy, no doubt I have blind spots. Perhaps I have one here. But I
don't think the evidence presented is indicating that.
> I wouldn't call you dishonest per se in that regard, but
> I sure would say you significantly lack integrity.
Okay, I accept that. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
