Again - I'm not defending Phil. I dislike what I saw there. It may not rise to illegal, but still seems like there's more going on; and he's certainly said this isn't the first exchange. I was only considering your (much?) earlier response to accusations he's dicey to engage.
Well, I don't know what to say to you then. He posted the email and admitted to having written it and to knowing that Peter did not want any contact with him. He defended doing so. I don't see any grounds for claiming this has not been established to be true.
-
-
No, that part is clear. I mean, I lack all the earlier, more detailed (perhaps even more damning) evidence that you've pointed to in support of your criticisms of him. Sorry for being unclear.
-
You're still being unclear and I think I am going to leave it here. I have not asked anyone to believe anything for which there is not evidence in the form of Phil's own posts and admissions.
-
No, you explicitly said not to believe - apologies if I implied otherwise. I was trying to make a different point (that you pointed to hidden evidence to support your public criticism). But fair enough, and I should go too. Thanks for the very interesting discussion.
-
I did. I spoke of things that I know and that Phil knows when talking to Phil that is not visible to anyone else watching the conversation. Therefore they should not consider themselves to know it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.