Letters to the Editor
-
xrandadu Hutman
"I didn't ignore anything. The point remains: If a person makes 5 true statements, then 2 false statements, those 5 true statements don't magically make the 2 false statements less false. Nor is there any dispute about them. The focus is on the 2 statements that are false. I have no obligation to discuss the other 5 statements because I am not contending that every part of the story was a lie, only that some parts were. The parts of the story that are true are irrelevant."
Actually, if you note, I called you on the "largely" which implies mostly or a majority. So by your own example, if a person makes 5 true statements, then two false ones, all about the very same singular event, then it isn't "largely" or mostly false; it's actually mostly true. So if you want to acknowledge that you overstepped on the "largely", which is what I took you to account for as dishonest, then we're not so bad on this.
I also haven't disputed you on the two items as "false", just your characterization of them as necessarily "lies". The one does not automatically lead to the other.
"The parts of the story that are true are irrelevant."
They're not irrelevant if you state or imply that she is mostly lying or repeatedly lying. Just like Tiger's victories are not irrelevant if I say he is a "loser", there being a difference between losing and being a loser, just as their is a difference between lying and being a liar, even if one gives you your reading.
" there are accounts of the story all over the media now, and they all provide the full context"
actually, they don't, as my quote of today's media report shows where they cite her saying she remembers being told of the potential of fire as proof she's offered the story of actual fire before. Or how they say Sinbad disputes her without noting he also disputes himself, since he called it tense in contemporaneous interviews. Hardly the full context