To know whether the word 'admit' connotes that there has been a prior reluctance to state something (or prior position indicating that a reluctance might be expected) requires context? Or does rationalizing the distortion require context?
Here is the context:
You made one threat toward me (granted you later admitted it was a joke).
Message 15887537
Re context, I assume you know that I have proclaimed rather than denied from the beginning that it was a joke, yet Mike's inserting the little verb "admitted" implies that it was I who was disreputably trying to wiggle out of or evade something, and that he wrested the truth out of me.
I like this little item just because it is so gratuitous a deceit. Deceit for merely the sake of making me look like I try not to admit true things and of making himself look as though he can get reluctant discussants to "admit" things. There is, of course, the additional false implication that i had tried, earlier, to make him think he was being seriously threatened by me. You have to have a special talent to come up with such devious devices.
If something other than what I have stated is the case regarding whether I ever implied or said it wasn't a joke, Mike will post it, surely. I will pay him Johannes' ten thou for it, so if my denial that it was a jokey post isn't posted, you can be sure it was never made!
We've pretty much settled the matter of twt's 'intimate relations' remark already, i believe. |
