G > Remember that you once said (paraphrased)
G > Where there's smoke there's fire.
DS > That was said in reference to what
DS > you admitted you did to Lisa
DS > Watkins' daughter.
G > You say. =A0 But you conveniently forgot
G > that with 15 child abuse investigations
G > yourself, and 5 FOUNDEDS, the smoke/fire
G > rationale applies to YOU even better!
G > (And with MULTIPLE re****ters, to boot!)
DS > No, it doesn't.
DS > Because I've never admitted abuse or neglect... while you did.
Don't you mean I've admitted to things that
YOU and the CASEWORKERS have CHOSEN
to pretend are abuse or neglect?
Show me where the LAW defines what I did as neglect.
Otherwise it's just a bunch of *****y ATTITUDE on your part, Dan!
Not to mention that the very nature of the
[ Where there's smoke there's fire ] BS you
used is an obvious FALLACY.
DS > That is the explanation for the smoke/fire comparison.
Do you honestly think nothing you ever did
could be defined by somebody ELSE as abuse
or neglect?
=46rom what you say, Dan, that did happen to you.
And the issue of admitting to something that somebody ELSE
defines as evil really has little to do with the fact that
people called on FIFTEEN PLUS abuse re****ts on you.
You were investigated for child abuse FIFTEEN PLUS times.
I was investigated TWICE ever, 7 years apart.
For YOU to try this [ smoke/fire ] fallacy on ME was absurd!
You're still defending the indefensible, ala Kent Wills.
Is this another example of your superior STRATEGY, Dan??
|
