Reply #63: i did not OUT

[lala_rawraw]

her... she was not a source. i went forward because I was worried about her safety and wanted to provide context. i have told you this. the safest place for anyone is in the light of day. now there is so much attention on this that she is safer than if no one knew. i also owed everyone the context, in fact felt obligated to do so. i did not have any agreements with her or promises of confidentiality. i met her once, provided my contact information for her to give to her husband. that is why Renner's article is a lie.

i have answered this question. you have asked it before when you claimed that you doubted i actually made contact with them. then you doubted me because i said he was coming from DC, but he was. and it continues. the point is, that it is not that you have questions that bothers me, it is that you insist changing what your questions are and claim I don't answer them that bothers me. you also make a great many assumptions and you refuse to respect boundaries. there are simply some things I cannot say at this time or maybe ever for reasons I am not at liberty to discuss with your anyone. this too I have told you before and you have claimed that I have used that excuse to avoid telling the truth.

it is not your question that offends me. it is the false appearance that you actually have a question that you want answered, when in fact, what you have been doing is attacking me. anyone who looks up your posts can see everything I just said is true. which is why so many people jumped on you when you posted this segment of the story. these are not people I know, with the exception of Hissy, whom I have met once. they are coming to their own conclusions. so, if indeed you are just a good person who wants questions answered, then my suggestion is that you start behaving as such.