I'll quote your reply to the other commenter:

>Reversing the sequential order made more sense to my mind as a reader, that's all.

That's just a dodge, and it's obvious to everyone, which is why that comment is sitting at -7 when I'm typing this. What's the "sense" it's making to you?

I'm done with this discussion. It's already obvious to everyone with eyes that you're commenting in bad faith, and I'm tired of this.

So what were you trying to say if you weren't trying to mislead? I suppose you're hoping that nobody reading your replies notices the fact that you keep avoiding saying what your point was in picking those specific paragraphs out of their context and reversing their order. How about instead of coming up with imagined flaws in me, you do that?

>That was not my thought at all, and I disagree with your interpretation.

So what was your thought? How do you disagree? What other purpose could cherrypicking two unrelated paragraphs from a long article and arranging them in a misleading way possibly serve?

> I've tagged you as a liar.

https://i.imgur.com/f7NFoZo.jpeg

Those are completely separate paragraphs from different parts of the article. Combining them that way only makes sense if you're trying to falsely imply that Diane Allen is the "whistleblower" being talked about in the second paragraph and is therefore supposedly being dishonest for selfish reasons. That whistleblower is a different person.

Since most people won't read the article and might fall for your bullshit: There are multiple allegations of sexual misconduct from multiple people.