>>>One part of one story from one of the 9 victims (so far) -- following so far?
>
>See, that's what I warned you about earlier- the piling-on of unrelated material until some people confuse what the stories are about.
>
>In this case, the majority of women were older than the age of consent and report interactions with Moore that did not progress past kissing. There's even discussion of mothers' knowledge or even approval of the relationship.
>
>It's one thing to say that he relied on power asymmetry to pursue younger impressionable women. Sadly, in the age of the casting couch and in days when (for example) society considered that rape in marriage wasn't rape at all, power asymmetry was all too common, with women forced to teach each other strategies on how to deal with pests and worse. Recently we learned that Hollywood predation seems to have continued to this day, which is a total scandal.
>
>Certainly my "feeling" is that a man in his 30s serially dating teens, even with their mothers' blessing, would have been creepy even back then. But that's just a feeling, and it's a mistake to use that to call him a pedophile- one of the many ignored points I made to you some days ago. Perhaps you'll entertain the possibility now that WAPO agrees: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/roy-moore-is-not-a-pedophile/2017/11/19/1a9ae238-cb21-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html
>
>It's also a mistake to try to fool all the people all the time that all the stories are in the same vein. I say that by muddling it all together, you're distracting from the accusations that really matter. Such as the accusation of rape rather than (gasp) kissing a 19-year-old on a date encouraged by her mother because he was good marriage material (which is what was described by one of your "victims")
>
>This is why the yearbook matters more than you want to admit. The yearbook is physical evidence volunteered by somebody who accused Moore of attempted rape. You must understand that Moore's outright denial elevates it above the creepiness of a man in his 30s writing such endearments to a 16-year-old. Now it's a direct test of his honesty. Surely you see this? This is a golden opportunity to confirm everything that you already know is true. If Moore is a brazen liar in something like this- which he must be if your version is correct- then he's going to be caught out. And Alabamans will ask "if he lied about this, what else is he lying about" and poof goes his benefit of the doubt and they all pay homage to your enlightened standard and he's toast.
>
>And yet you seem reluctant, and want to minimize it. Why? A reasonable person might conclude that you're not expecting the examination to go your way.
>
>>>Ok - so you choose to defend the child molester and not believe the women. Got it - disgusting as it is - I get it.
>
>Certainly I agree that this sort of wilful misrepresentation is pretty disgusting. You do realize that this crude sophistry weakens your own credibility?

Considering the fact that you're sitting here defending a sexual predator I don't think you should be worried about anyone's credibility other than your own at the moment as it's looking rather bleak at the moment.