|
I am perfectly happy to have "the record" be public, why shouldn't I be? I said that I had read the post as meaning what he explained; that I had known him for awhile, and was familiar with his manner of expression when he got angry; and therefore allowed as how one might take it as being harsher than intended. You first called me a liar, in effect, for saying that I had read it in the more benign way to begin with. Then, you accepted the dual interpretation premise, and concocted the theory of plausible deniability, because haqi had to have known how you would read it. You called me shameless for holding to the more benign interpretation, and denying that your ultimate interpretation had to be true. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and denied that you had a solid case. I still deny it. His "admission" does not support your interpretation, despite the acceptance of the term "intimidate", so long as he denies any intention of threatening you. And yet you now gloat that you have me on record as a shameless liar. Well, enjoy! |
