Reply #57: Ummm, dude...

[SDuderstadt]

You're missing the point. It's one of (and, in fact, the primary definition, even according to your sources) the definitions. Think about what that means. Since it is the primary definition and you don't know which definition Clinton relied upon, how could he have lied? Is this sinking in? My comment about "precision" was pointing to a reference showing that definition.

Let me make sure I get this straight. Are you now claiming that a listener can assert that a speaker lied merely by pointing to an alternate definition other than what the speaker relied upon? Do you realize how goofy that is? In fact, that is why opposing counsel at trial will stipulate to specific meanings of words, so there is no confusion as to which definition is being relied upon.

The funniest thing here is that you still don't get it, even though I have explained it to you patiently over and over again. You seem to think Clinton had to consider all the possible definitions for the phrase "sexual relations" in order to avoid lying. How silly. The fact is you misquoted Clinton to try to call him a liar. Your hypertechnicality is making you look even siller...if that's even possible. Pathetic.


P.S. Please point to ANY lie I have told. Be specific.

P.P.S. Do you need me to define the word "specific" for you?