Good morning, X!
About your latest change of subject, this one to "cooking up," which of course would translate to, if true, giving you an opportunity to lie if you wanted to lie.
You refer to the way I "asked the question" as proof it was "cooking up."
This is how someone would have put it if they were hoping you'd lie, instead of giving you a description that would assure you'd remember:
"BTW, have you ever posted a PM of mine to a third party?"
But this is the way I "asked the question", giving you specific information that I assumed would recall the specific post to your mind, including that the correct answer was definitively YES ("It was about my childhood," etc):
"X. On the subject of confidentiality:
Have you ever pasted a long, deeply personal, revealing, confessional, (it was about my childhood, among other things) PM I sent to you to a third party without my knowing?"
Now, as you know, Poet had sent me the PM in which you'd done the above.
When, to my surprise, given that I'd supplied you with a description that would surely jog your memory, given that it was a PM to which you had reacted strongly, you denied it -- then Poet posted. It hardly surprised me that Poet posted then. If she hadn't, I would of course have posted the information myself. In fact, I did.
We both had the information. Clearly I posted to jog your memory and let you know the specific post existed so you'd answer correctly, not minimally, to "trap" you.
You were trapped by your assumption that if it feels good to X, it's good. It caused you to forget, which I believe you had.
........................................................
1) It felt good to post that PM to others.
2) Posting personal PM's to others without their knowledge is bad.
3) Therefore you didn't post a PM to others.
4) Ad hoc, after the fact thought adjustment maneuver: if you DID post a PM to others, it felt good, so it in that particular circumstance it was good. Strike number 2. |
