But just so others aren't confused by your infantile response.
The word "apparently" is not a placeholder. It has an actual meaning, and a purpose. In this case, the purpose was to denote that things might not be as they seem.
And as I clearly stated in my second response to you, what I was writing in that response is based on your own belief in what the woman said. As my argument is that we cannot know if she is truthful now or not, I can't accuse her of doing things based on what she said, I can only point out what SHE is accusing HERSELF of.
You seem to then think that, because her claims were that she cheated, lied, and broke the rules, and engaged in possibly illegal drug trafficking FOR the U.S. postal service, that this somehow means that this isn't part of her own character.
Then you bizarrely claim that, because SHE says she finally told the truth, that this means that she finally told the truth. In fact, we can't KNOW whether she told the truth later -- all we know is that she was doing things for money, and then people offered her money to say things, and she said them.
But she told the truth, right??
She SAID she told the truth. Lance says he told the truth. Unless you are a mind reader, you would have to leap to a conclusion to assert that she told the truth. All we know is that she CLAIMS that, when offered money, she then stopped being a conspirator, and started telling the truth.
Oh no?? Sure could have fooled me
Of that, I am certain, but I would take no pride in it, as it would not seem to be a hard thing to do.
I thought you were one.
And as I clearly stated in my second response to you
You haven't clearly stated anything in days
what I was writing in that response is based on your own belief in what the woman said.
Are you a mind reader???
All we know is that she CLAIMS that, when offered money, she then stopped being a conspirator, and started telling the truth.
Can you show me that lie in the article???