I suppose that's reasonable. At the same time, there's something to be said for Occam's Razor. When one situation is simply more likely than the other, it's more reasonable to go in that direction. I don't even think that the deniers or moderates suggested that Watts was outright lying, as that's something that could be so career damaging.
That said, I somewhat agree with you on the emotional outbursts from the majority. They're not *that* common, and I can understand where the anger comes from, but certain posts in recent race threads that are particularly prejudiced against white people are pretty bad. I personally don't agree with shit like that at all.
Yes, I again completely agree with everything you said. I would just add that, in order for Occam's Razor to be effective in the court of public opinion, you should have a big enough pebble of evidence to slice.
(And for the record, I didn't think she was outright lying either. I figured that if her accusation did turn out to be unfounded, it would have been because of a misunderstanding. Usually these unjust accusations stem not from fabrications, but from a skewed perspective of the events, which is why I think it's so valuable to wait for a response from the accused before any sort of public judgment is made, except in rare cases like a video recorded incident. I probably would have commented when I first read the thread before it all came out, but I've limited myself to only posting on GAF one hour per night. This forum is too addictive!)