I think we may be reaching a point of diminishing returns. However, I'm learning a lot from all these conversations so I'll tickle a couple of points here and leave it to your judgement what's worth a reply. I continue to appreciate that we've been able to have a positive conversation despite having some differences.
I do know that Rachel is aware of stuff like the Meet the Predators post and the MOs of serial offenders because I presented it to her and other Arisia and Boskone staff during a BARCC workshop that she requested.
Understood. I wonder if she feels, given what evidence she has, that those things are applicable here. She's been notably silent in these public conversations so I'm reluctant to make assumptions about what she knows, remembers, or believes.
Scott claims that both parties negotiated who'd go to which event
He has clarified that they negotiated through third parties other than himself and conveyed a joint agreement to him.
I've never said "insane" in this conversation, FTR
True. You referred to "contortions of logic". I was writing in haste.
I do believe that someone can be mistaken without also acting illogically, but I don't see that as the case here.
So this brings me back to the question of whether calling Scott's statements "lies" versus "mistakes" advances your greater goals. I dunno; I can see value in both approaches.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-10 05:24 pm (UTC)I do know that Rachel is aware of stuff like the Meet the Predators post and the MOs of serial offenders because I presented it to her and other Arisia and Boskone staff during a BARCC workshop that she requested.
Understood. I wonder if she feels, given what evidence she has, that those things are applicable here. She's been notably silent in these public conversations so I'm reluctant to make assumptions about what she knows, remembers, or believes.
Scott claims that both parties negotiated who'd go to which event
He has clarified that they negotiated through third parties other than himself and conveyed a joint agreement to him.
I've never said "insane" in this conversation, FTR
True. You referred to "contortions of logic". I was writing in haste.
I do believe that someone can be mistaken without also acting illogically, but I don't see that as the case here.
So this brings me back to the question of whether calling Scott's statements "lies" versus "mistakes" advances your greater goals. I dunno; I can see value in both approaches.