Thanks for the PM, and for bowing out. I still feel I need to answer things that you said, however.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
all I'm pointing out to you is if you appeared to be lucid and sober after a period of time then how is the guy supposed to know that you weren't short of running a barrage of tests on you?
|
I never disagreed with this point. My question is, why did you feel the need to point this out to me over and over again?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
it's odd that I am answering in a way very similar to how your real life friends answer, and yet on here you noticed that a few people actually responded in a way that both surprised you and has given you some comfort. I didn't mean to take away from that comfort, but remember that the general consensus you're getting on this board was initially surprising to you.
|
No, sorry smooth, I'm afraid you're not answering at all like my real-life friends answered, because none of them chalked up my "guilt" to being 100%. Everyone agreed that both parties were responsible, though the guy was an asshole for taking advantage of the situation.
The reason I was surprised at some people's answers here was because they were putting the guilt 100% on the guy, which I (same as you) thought was unfair of them. I never budged on that stance, though it seems you perceived that I did budge on it. My only position all along has been that in a situation such as mine, two people were at fault; I was stupid, and he was an asshole. And when that happens (not in a case of pure innocence vs. guilt), both people have to take responsibility for their decisions... otherwise you get some useless, expensive, messy court situation that only makes things worse. I just don't understand why you disagreed with me, or how I "hid" any facts from the beginning.