I didn't interpret it, I read it. Nothing to interpret-- unless of course one wants to help the one who posted a false attribution wiggle out of what his post plainly says. Then the interpretation starts!!! It depends on what 'is' is, right, JLA?
Well, interpret away, interpret interpret interpret until the cows come home, Mr. miniClinton! Those of us who can read know what 'is' is without Clinton 'interpreting' it for us, and what 'mentioning' a 'distaste for' certain noble nouns is, too, and what it isn't, without a bunch of miniClinton's interpreting for us to try to prove 'is' is "well maybe it could mean right now, i'm not having sex right now, and anyway 'having sex' doesn't mean oral sex, i extrapolated that it meant penetration, i concluded it, it was my fair characterization of what sex with that woman meant...."
Buncha miniClintons over here, interpreting interpreting interpreting perfectly plain words.
I have interpreted nothing. |
