The only bit I was wrong about was the 'This is not a drill' heading. It wasn't a letter sent by email to individual academics as you claimed. There was no 'We rejected it' as you claimed because it was simply an article. The letter you said was a response to it was written 2 years later, not in direct response as you claimed.
You could apologise for lying but I won't even bother suggesting it.
Evidence? Proof before making allegation of lying required?
If it wasn't on Medium, where did I conjure it up from out of thin air in less that one minute. It is in my INBOX sent by Stock on the evening of 18th December 2019.
If you look at the content of Medium, the text is always justified to the left margin. If you look at the copy of the email, you will see that the text is centred.
As ever Aurora, when you are given evidence you that you don't approve of, you look for every available avenue to either discredit the evidence, the author of the evidence, or as in this case, the person who puts the evidence before you.
CXRandy was another doubter. He demanded evidence of the existence of the email by posting it. This was done within one minute of the demand. There was no time for me to scratch around looking in other places.
The heading was not added by me - though I had admitted that I had not remembered the title correctly earlier on. It gave you a second opportunity to find it. Neither was the date different from what I had said.
You also claimed there was no reference to it on Twitter; however there was - from Rowling, Forstater and possibly others.
I did not receive an email with a link to the Medium article, and if I had I would not have been able to access it.
There is no reason to suppose that in my professional life that I could not have received that email from Stock.
You've undone yourself.
