Andrew P Stucken wrote:I really can't be bothered to trawl this voluminous thread for the exact quote but I believe you said something along the lines of people arguing anything not fully supportive of Charlie Elphike's treatment had their own stuff to deal with. The shaming tone annoyed me, and sounded like you were trying to win the argument by embarrassing people into silence.
I'd expect a more robust research methodology from a history graduate than, 'to hell with what you actually said, I'll just make something up'.
Saved you the trouble (took me less time than it took you to write your post):
'
Anyone who dismisses Elphicke's behaviour as mere 'flirting' or 'randiness' given what's publicly known about it probably has other areas of denial they need to attend to.' WGS, post #22
My point obviously concerned the disjunction between Elphicke's
actual behaviour as described by the judge and the contrary
interpretation of that behaviour by some contributors, with the (in my view, helpful) suggestion that any other opinions similarly at odds with reality could benefit from a review.
Nothing at all about Elphicke's 'treatment', and any 'shaming tone' must be located in the (non-)reader.
And, if you believe people on this forum can be 'embarrassed into silence' then you don't come here very often.