> I'd rather not turn this into a pedantic argument where we parse every word, sentence, and phrase. But I'll respond because I think we prob agree more than disagree and trust that you have good intentions and want a dialogue.
I have no interest in a dialogue with you.
First, I only really wanted you to clarify the "deligitimizes" claim, but I now know that that isn't going to happen.
Second, you called me an "apologist of sexual harassers", any possibility of rational dialogue died at that point, you knew that, and your trying to downplay it now with your poor attempt at presenting yourself as rational and open to discussion isn't changing that. Hell, you'd probably have been better off owning up to the baseless accusation.
So, I'm mostly going to ignore this reply, except for the three most glaringly misguided claims:
> What you are accusing me of doing, is what you are doing yourself to me, no?
I didn't accuse you of being an "apologist of sexual harassers" so... no.
> I don't think you can go too overboard calling out this type of predatory behavior
You know that "having them killed" would fit this statement, right? You really ought to phrase yourself better or drop the misanthropy, people aren't as terrible or as incorregible as you think they are.
> Also, you mention "huge amount of false or exaggerated accusations", but by your own admission, and by McClure himself, all these accusations of him being a serial creep are true. So not false, and not exaggerated.
So, because the ones about McClure were true, all of them are true. Again, don't you see how that could be easily turned against you? If someone tomorrow were to accuse you of harassment, you can't possibly defend yourself without displaying some hypocrisy regarding these statements.