I have tried to be civil in dealing with you, even after the "shove it " comment, but you are making it difficult.
1. Either it happened or it didn't--- the law of non- contradiction, which is the first rule of logic. Both could be lying in other resects, but either it happened or it didn't.
2. The point of "absent a definitive adjudication, we are free to surmise either way " is to concede that you have as much right to disbelieve Paula as I do to believe her, since the question is undecidable under the circumstances. But it is no more certain that the story was manufactured, and I have a right to believe her.
3. None of your insinuations definitively rebut my version, they merely cast sufficient doubt as to keep your version alive. Since I have already said that my principal contention was that she deserved her day in court, I don't see that I am being slippery.
4. I didn't say that Paula's sincerity was "obvious". She could be a good actress. I said that she appeared sincere to me.
5. My previous replies are a sufficient answer to your concluding rant.
By the way, ever since the '92 primaries, when he got caught out in prevarication after prevarication, to a degree that astonished even the mainstream press core, Clinton has been branded an egregious liar. Coupled with his aura of fake sincerity, he is considered stomach turning by many. And Monica does at least demonstrate that the general reputation that he has for womanizing is warranted. It is against that background that I find these other women more credible than him. |
