2 ms·

> DeGrey admits this. To be absolutely clear (and play devils advocate to a degree), he did not admit to that. What he actually says is: Laura references an

> DeGrey admits this. To be absolutely clear (and play devils advocate to a degree), he did not admit to that. What he actually says is: Laura references an email I wrote - inadvisedly, for sure, and which I unreservedly regret - to her when she was 17, but she explicitly states that "I wrote it off as a mistake" He notes she initially wrote it off as a mistake, and the email was inadvisable. He's walking a fine line here, where he's not outright saying she was correct in thinking the email was a mistake (it's also a bit unclear what this means from her, a mistake on his part or a mistake in her interpretation, but I assume the former), and he regrets is, but the reason for that regret is left for us to intuit. You assume (as I do) that it's because he actually was attempting to solicit a relationship, but it's left such that it could plausibly be explained later as him regretting that he was so loose with his words that it could be interpreted that way. I mention this not because I think he's innocent of that specific accusation, but because he's worded this very specifically, and while I think the implication is that yes, he did hit on her, he hasn't actually admitted that, and make statements that he has just confuses the issue to some degree and causes backlash in those that see statements like this and then read the source later, and notice the discrepancy and side with the person in question because "people are obviously out to get him by twisting his words". His words are fairly damning when laid out exactly as they are, so better to use them that way, IMO.

JabavuAdams 5y ago
You are technically correct. I could have been more precise in my wording. As you say, though, it doesn't change my (or your) conclusion.
- kbenson 5y ago
  That's right. I just think sometimes these are left in as escape hatches, or possibly landmines, for critics. E.g. You and others say he admitted it, later he clarifies what he meant which makes prior statements of others incorrect, which can then be pointed to as evidence of all sorts of things, like a concerted effort to defame or ignore the reality or people lying, which just muddies the waters, and provides a smokescreen for the person to hide behind. The only defense against things like that are to stick to the facts and be clear and correct based on what other people have said and what we think that actually means. e.g. "I think the implication is clear, even if it's not outright admitted." Anything else helps them by giving them ammunition to lob back later.

JabavuAdams 5y ago

You are technically correct. I could have been more precise in my wording. As you say, though, it doesn't change my (or your) conclusion.

kbenson 5y ago
That's right. I just think sometimes these are left in as escape hatches, or possibly landmines, for critics. E.g. You and others say he admitted it, later he clarifies what he meant which makes prior statements of others incorrect, which can then be pointed to as evidence of all sorts of things, like a concerted effort to defame or ignore the reality or people lying, which just muddies the waters, and provides a smokescreen for the person to hide behind. The only defense against things like that are to stick to the facts and be clear and correct based on what other people have said and what we think that actually means. e.g. "I think the implication is clear, even if it's not outright admitted." Anything else helps them by giving them ammunition to lob back later.