Based on what?
Not necessarily blackmailed, anon.
I'm just wondering what triggered the anon to say that, specifically, seemingly
out of the blue.
I like Mr. Dirt posts. He seems on the ball.
It's called an exclusive nor, or if and only if. The statement also implies the
opposite is true, i.e., either both are dirty or both are clean. FYI, someone that
has studied logic wrote that originally.
IMO, in a way nobody expects.
Ddun dun duuuunnnn!
I don't think you understood what I said. An exclusive nor means
both are the same. Q said this in a way that was intentionally ambiguous,
knowing most people wouldn't catch the duality. Lawyers do this, BTW.
Yes, but why bring it up now, out of the blue?
I think you're reading too much into it, particularly now that we know what we know. Q meant the opposite,
i.e., both are clean. Those clinging to the RM dirty theory desperately want to discredit the exoneration.
Fair enough.