|
In response to
"Exactly. I am amazed there is a debate here. -- nm"
by
Spawn
|
I don't want to get into a stupid semantic debate (but what the hell, this is ST), but you guys are reading in something not stated.
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
May 2 '13, 08:01
|
He said he's not cheating because he's receiving, not giving. You guys are reading in the implication that because she usually receives, it should be the opposite for her, but that's not stated. What he said is that the giver is the cheater.
|
Responses:
|