Well, truthfully I wasn't replying to your post. Yours went up while I was writing mine. Nonetheless...

I see no reason to suspect Victory1 of lying. There are no real inconsistencies in her story and it's not uncommon to see LWs come defend themselves on the Fray. If they write to Prudie, then they read Slate and they know the Fray. I also feel like her writing has the ring of truth to it. It seems genuine to me, but like I said, that's all subjective and in the grand scheme of things no one technically can know for sure. If Victory1 was lying, why wouldn't the real LW step forward? I bet the vast majority of Prudie's writers pore over the comments.

And the reasons you outlined above for disbelieving her ... I don't see where any of them could logically compel you to the conclusion that Victory1 is making it all up. Your main problem with them seems to be that they are just too darned convenient for answering the criticism, too convenient for making her appear rational despite the fact that you sensed "a degree of neurosis" in the original letter.

There's really nothing unbelievable about any of those points when you take away the loaded language. I mean, it would be interesting to know how she got the records, and I am curious about her curriculum, but none of it is so far-fetched as to arouse my skepticism. In other words, you appear to me to be grasping at straws.

If she's lying, she's better at it than you give her credit for. Yes, it's fair that she's subject to scrutiny. It's also fair for me to scrutinize the scrutinizers. We're all a jolly bunch of scrutins here on the Fray. I just don't think she should be treated like a crazy liar unless she's actually been proven to be a crazy liar. That hasn't happened, so how about a little respect for the lady? Geez.