Slowman wrote:
"Sorry for not giving your buddy, who you keep bending backwards to defend, the benefit of doubt." it's comments like this that undermine your point, and i'm sure you have a valid point. jack is a professional colleague. he and i have never spent time together outside of a USAT function. if you had - let us say - embezzled funds, while acknowledging your past bad deed i would not maintain that you're still embezzling funds. nor would i allow anyone on this forum to make that claim against you.
as to my other point, i think you well know what i'm talking about.
The problem you're having is not realizing exactly how off base you are. So yes, you are completely defending him (while ridiculously denying it), and no, your other "point" was absurd.
If you can't think of a crime that defines a person for the rest of their life, you're not trying hard. But as we both know, you're playing semantics to obfuscate from your clearly being on the wrong side of this argument.