I assure you I know abundantly more about the "social customs of young Saharan [sic] Africans" than you do, and I have known, personally and well, many more African girls-- and women-- than you have.
That's what I actually said.
You characterized this variously. Like Michael, you use qualifiers so you can toss phrases of one sort or another onto the page for the effect you seek-- and then not take responsibility for them when this is pointed out. Readers in the world of advertising will recognize the gimmick.
You two are really big on evading responsibility for your words, dude. "Admitted" was one of Mike's deceptive toss-offs recently (used when there was nothing to be admitted), but he does those routinely, and doesn't respond when called on it, naturally.
This is you, your exact words, tossing into the mix the phrase 'intimate relations,' which means to all who read it, sexual relations.
you responded something along the lines of saying that you had close or intimate relations with many African women while you were in Africa.
You add "along the lines of close or" because that way you could include the implications around the euphemism "intimate relations" even though I had never said anything about "intimate relations." Which are having sex.
But: "Intimate relations" is yours, and yours alone. Created out of your head. You put it here. You.
Oh, wait! You didn't mean sex by "intimate relations." Is that correct?
Another little thing, speaking of what you "mean": I said I owed you an apology because I said that business about the link because I thought you had, in fact, included the link. I thought it, and apologized, because you had written the following to me, and, silly me, I didn't know you were being a Clintonesque trickster:
Well E, wrong again, LOL I have provided the link as I am an engineer and I found it with my skills (45 seconds) which include understanding how to organize information so that it's a click away when I need it. But within my last several posts I have posted a link to the message. But I suspect e is not up to finding the link I have published.
I hope everyone sees this lovely little exhibition of your forthrightness. Because it turns out now that "within my last several posts I have posted a link to the message" etc. didn't mean that you posted its URL at all. It meant you had posted this: watman.com
a site where if one happened to know it was there, one might be able to find it.
But... just as you didn't mean to imply anything dishonest about me having sex when you tossed 'intimate relations' into the mix, you didn't mean to imply dishonestly that you had provided the link to the post on SI, did you?
What a trustworthy gentleman you are. Straightforward. Forthright. Open. Decent. Honest as the day is long. Your word is your bond.
You and Michael are pure, pure Clinton. It's all slimey word tricks to get over. Yuck. |
