This is a link to my original post on this thread. #172
Please read it if you have time. I think covers fairly well what I've been saying all along.
No, and it's obvious you did not bother to inform yourself with the source I provided in #293. Your ignorance about this case is either a choice or a pretense, in my opinion.
Please read it if you have time. I think covers fairly well what I've been saying all along.
It doesn't cover your multiple claims that there were peripheral players named in the suit who believed the accuser's story. The honorable thing to do is to either back up your claim, or retract it.
Or do you just not care whether you write truthful things or not?