[Hulka]

Thanks.

“I think it’s fine for him to give more accurate facts, if the other writer’s claims were incorrect.”

Indeed, he did.

“I also think it’s disingenuous for him to say he never considered anyone would find his actions inappropriate.”

So, if I understand you correctly, he did well by responding, whereas his statement about becoming engaged before formally divorced is your concern and prompted the “wounded naif” accusation.

Upon review, in my view, I disagree with your accusation that “the wounded naif act was a little weak.”

Appreciate the exchange.

[Tax-chick]

Yes, my wording "wounded naif" was in response to his statement that he was surprised that being engaged while still married was a problem for Christians. (Most of us are not, after all, polygamists.) I would have connected this point to my second sentence, about this confused and vague mindset's extending to possible issues in his marriage ... but I was on my beeber-thing with no keyboard because some teenager was using the real computer ;-).

Agreeing to disagree is fine with me, too. It's what one expects.