you conjecture that a "threat" can only be made regarding a lie and not the truth.
Where is that conjecture? Those are your words and concept, not mine. Blackmail is an example of a threat that could be made regarding the truth. A blackmailer could threaten to reveal embarrassing private truths unless he got payoffs.
We are in ProLife's case talking about public exchanges about public disinformation, so to refer to my saying i will correct those lies a "threat" -- well, that's speshull.
If the truth is felt to be 'impending' bad news, so hearing that if you keep lying publicly you'll continue to be corrected publicly feels to you like a 'threat,' that is telling.
Now, re 'threats." Yet again, ad infinitum. I thought you'd put that to rest, Michael.
Now you write!:
Therefore, your supposed "catch me in a lie" is nothing of the sort. Two incidents is a plural, meaning the *s* is not a lie and stands objectively as the truth,
But Michael. I thought we had settled that matter when you wrote to me these words:
<<If you interpreted the S to mean I implied multiple threats in the past, than I am truly sorry E. >>
You then expatiated on what you had meant, ie, NOT that you were implying multiple threats in the past.
Let's agree: as you wrote, there were no multiple threats in the past.
Continued. |
