If I find the ProLife exchange, will you admit that your claim that I "haunted" Prolife for "weeks," as opposed to simply doing some very good research using a prenatal science link provided by him, that proved, after days, Michael, not "weeks," of Proflife's repeatedly denying that he had been perpetrating an outrageous lie for years, that he had, indeed, been doing just that. ProLife was very discomfited to learn that he had been fooled by a particular pamphlet for many years. Sixteen, eighteen, something like that. And to give him credit, he acknowledged he had been disseminating disinformation. (On the other hand, it must be said that he also wrote words very close to this: "What's so wrong about lying to SAVE LIVES?!!")
(Is that the way you feel about the budget lie, Michael? What's so wrong about it?)
Why is it that the one who posted a lie (innocently, believing it was a truth), and kept insisting for a few days (not "weeks") on its veracity, is not the haunter rather than the hauntee? He was promulgating a lie. I corrected it, even though it took a few days (not "weeks.") Even you seem to admit I detected a grotesque, in fact comical, lie in his pamphlet and managed to provide proof that convinced both him and you. Everyone, in fact. Commendations would, in most circumstances, be in order. Not a false characterization of the truth seeker as the haunter and the admitted (innocent) lie-promulgator as the hauntee.
Do you think i should have let him continue to believe (and promulgate) that big lie?
If so, why? It was an agenda-based intentional lie designed to fool people like ProLife and those to whom he spread it. Why, Michael, should I have not taken it seriously enough to prove that? Why should I not be commended for doing so? |
