Yes, and the moral reformationists are considered stomach turning by just as many, at least. What is "it" that happened? The whole Jones suit comes down to exactly one incident? And her account is true in exactly the lurid detail you and your conservative (but objective, of course) press buddies love to sit around and talk about? Maybe, but it all sounds like neologic to me. Black and white, true and false, moral absolutism, you guys sure are subtle.
Then, there's the issue of how poor Paula's "old feelings " got stirred up by that article. That's the absolute truth too, right, Neocon? Nobody assisted her in stirring up her "feelings", certainly not Porter, who assisted in planting the (false, at least in part, by all accounts) Arkansas trooper story. It's just a miraculous coincidence that after poor Paula's "feelings" got stirred up by that article, she showed up in court backed by the same people behind planting the article. But Porter and Marcus were just interested in getting some justice for poor Paula, who they'd assisted in besmirching, right?
Civil is as civil does, and if you think your bland, unsupported retelling of a peculiarly political version of the "truth" is civil, that's your business. The NYT story seemed more convincing to me, what with the obvious contributions of Brock and Jones' attorneys of record, but I realize it's not the story you want to tell. In a civil manner, of course. |
