We also show text messages of us encouraging them to invite people over. We even have text messages showing me encouraging Chloe to see her boyfriend sooner and her saying no. Alice invited multiple friends to travel with us. When Chloe quit one of her friends was visiting us for 2-4 weeks (canāt quite remember). To be fair, that friend we invited. But if sheād invited him, we would have been thrilled.
Their portrayal of us saying that only me and Emerson could invite people to travel with us is clearly established to be false.
On this point, your reply seems very compelling to me. ((Though itās at least imaginable that Chloe would point out ways in which this is misleading ā e.g., maybe her bf had āEA potentialā or got along well with Emerson or you and some other friends of hers didnāt, and maybe someone made comments about her other friends. Idk.))
I think itās important to not hold people to unreasonable standards when they try to present a lot of evidence. If this (the invites allowed list) is one of only few instances where itās overstated how important a particular piece of evidence is, then thatās still totally compatible with a high degree of objectivity!
I overall felt like there were some other places where I was uncertain how much to update, while your wording āwantedā me to make a very big update. But I also think these things can be hard to judge.
This on its own, maybe. But Chloeās boyfriend was invited to travel with us for 2 of the 5 months she was with us, and we were about to invite him to travel with us indefinitely, free of charge. Thatās a hard to fake signal that she was more than welcome to invite friends and family.
We also show text messages of us encouraging them to invite people over. We even have text messages showing me encouraging Chloe to see her boyfriend sooner and her saying no. Alice invited multiple friends to travel with us. When Chloe quit one of her friends was visiting us for 2-4 weeks (canāt quite remember). To be fair, that friend we invited. But if sheād invited him, we would have been thrilled.
Their portrayal of us saying that only me and Emerson could invite people to travel with us is clearly established to be false.
On this point, your reply seems very compelling to me. ((Though itās at least imaginable that Chloe would point out ways in which this is misleading ā e.g., maybe her bf had āEA potentialā or got along well with Emerson or you and some other friends of hers didnāt, and maybe someone made comments about her other friends. Idk.))
I think itās important to not hold people to unreasonable standards when they try to present a lot of evidence. If this (the invites allowed list) is one of only few instances where itās overstated how important a particular piece of evidence is, then thatās still totally compatible with a high degree of objectivity!
I overall felt like there were some other places where I was uncertain how much to update, while your wording āwantedā me to make a very big update. But I also think these things can be hard to judge.