Connie whines in response that she’s been the victim of the same practice, and that I only quoted part of what she said.
He tried to make me look totally uninformed about the Emmett Till case, or unsympathetic toward the victim.This is what she said at the time:
I said more than that, and he's still lying about it.Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the [sic] was brutally murdered for it.
Give her credit: she realized the murder was “an atrocity.” But, as her comment at the time suggests, she still doesn’t quite understand why.My acknowledgement that the murder was an atrocity was what he originally left out of text he stole from Backsass and posted at his blog, in order to slander and lie about me. My comment at the time was, "Emmett Till was not falsely accused. He came on to a white woman in pre-civil rights Mississippi, and the was brutally murdered for it. The murder was an atrocity, but it has absolutely no connection whatever to the story in my novel."
That doesn't suggest I don't quite understand why. It suggests I understand exactly the kind of libel Simpson was attempting to perpetrate against me.
After all, as she said, “Notice, too, how he fraudulently labels the the Till case as an example of ‘false accusation’ …”; in short, she still believes Till was rightly accused. Guess those sweet southern boys were justified in what they did in the fantasy world of Connie Chastain. They simply should have gone about it a different way.That is simply another way of lying. His original lie said, "But I guess she trusts the accounts of the sweet southern boys who killed Till."
As I also clearly stated in Jun 2013, "I trust the account of the murderers? No. And as I understand it, there were several conflicting accounts, and, also significantly, Simpson doesn't tell us which one(s) to believe."
I've never read anything about the case that said Till was accused -- i.e., charged -- at all. When I say Till was not falsely accused, I mean that I've found no written accounts about the case that indicated Carolyn Bryant went to the police and filed any charges against him. I've read that she did not even tell her husband about the incident, that he heard it from others. I have also read that there were conflicting accounts, and that what happened is still disputed today.
In any case, before it could be established whether one account was true, and which one, or whether any of them were, Till was murdered. That's what I meant by he was not falsely accused, I'm sure Simpson is smart enough, and has a reasonable enough level of reading comprehension, to figure it out.
But being reasonable and acknowledging reality is not where he's at, when it comes to moi. His objective is to lie -- to accuse me of approving of murder and creating fictional characters who parallel Till's murderers. (I would love to know that does for him, wouldn't you? Though it may be something normal, decent people can't understand or relate to).
Next, he sez, "Will Connie return to defending/excusing Billy Bearden for expressing the wish that someone gets raped?"
Ah, naw. I don't have to defend or excuse Billy because I'm convinced he didn't mean it. It was not a serious, credible wish. It was some over-the-top rhetoric posted in the heat of anger -- once. That's O-N-C-E. Posted ONCE. Contrast it with years-long, oft-repeated, ongoing hate-slime Simpson posts at his scum-flog, his lies and, yes, his informal false accusations, his willingness, eagerness -- even his attempts -- to cause trouble for people who have done nothing to him.
Billy's an angel, a saint, by comparison.
Once more, the proposed victim would be black. Once more, the person sharing a wish for violence (at least it’s not committing violent acts) is white. Maybe one reason some people are defined as belonging to protected classes is that they need to be protected from vile white supremacists.
No, that's not what they're "protected" for/from.