The problem was that SIU's truth 'evolved' over time. So Glenn adjusted his public statements out of respect for the university's morphing positions and the value, as a dying man, that he placed upon personal integrity. Is this truly tantamount to "lying" in your view?
On another topic, I wrote to you: "Kristin, you have misread greatly if you think I wrote that Glenn should be excused for fraud because he was a committed single parent. I have never expressed that about him or anyone else. (Indeed, I perceive no fraud in his educational background as he summarized it at different points in time.) Yet such an off-base assertion would follow in the GHMB tradition of inferring something different from what a poster actually says and then reacting to the misattribution."
The first half is a conditional statement as signaled by the word if. I never claimed that you had actually thought that. I can only infer what you do or might think from the messages you post.
The second half of my one-paragraph statement remained conditional due to if as antecedent and the inclusion of the word would. And it did include a reference to my authentic assessment of the posting patterns of a few GHMB participants -- without personalizing it by naming posters. I expected that careful readers would see this as something other than a broad-brush statement about all those who read or contribute to these boards. I was simply hoping to proactively minimize misinterpretation.
A lotta good that did!