Quote:
Originally Posted by Not Bob
This from Slate points out that his alleged chastity is Not Relevant.
I knew he was a lace-curtain prick. I may have been a shitty dude in 1983, but I never groped the Punk Rock Girl when she was blotto, no matter how blotto I was.
And a shanty Irish grown up wouldn’t pretend that the “alumni association” crack was anything other than, at best, a mean joke. “Went to a single school function” and “admired her then and now,” my ass.
|
My conclusion from all of this is that there are two things that are indisputable:
(i) he was a drunken asshole during high school and college; that's not a crime, and there were even a couple drunken assholes I knew back then I thought were amusing, but most of them were just drunken assholes.
(ii) he's a liar today. He lies about small things, ranging from what the drinking age was when he was 17 (relevance?), to how much he drank back then, to what his sexual relationships were.
Number (ii) means that if this is just he-said, she-said, he loses. Number (i) isn't really relevant - while it may be more likely a drunken asshole will assault someone, there are plenty of drunken assholes who don't. But (i) does mean I will not feel guilty about any schadenfreude I may express about the situation, so there is that.
