This conversation really had me thinking yesterday. After hashing some stuff out, here is my take on the conversation:
Scott's nonsense and Barb denying she had internet were not intentional lies. I'm thinking that instead of that being a legitimate alibi they were trying to build, these are just dumb, inarticulate people. The words they said aren't what they meant. Their gut reaction of "Nuh uh! How dare you!" came out faster than their ability to form words in an intelligent way.
I know someone a lot like this. They could be walking around their house with muddy shoes tracking mud everywhere, you tell them this, they might go so far as to deny they are wearing shoes even though you can literally see them on their feet.
They mean to say something, but instead of carefully choosing words, they just say whatever comes to mind because a what you said upset them or they felt some way attacked and the words themselves literally mean nothing substantive. They often don't even remember the stuff they said because it was all just knee-jerk emoting. When they take a second to think, they can explain that they are in a hurry, don't have time to prevent the mess, and will deal with it later.
I'm thinking Scott and Barb were doing the same type of thing. Just a loud and vigorous denial, words or specifics weren't taken into account because the sense of feeling attacked overrides any common sense or reason. They aren't working out a scheme to wiggle out of the accusations, they are mostly just venting frustrations AT the accusations. I think maybe they're just facing stuff they aren't emotionally/mentally mature enough to fully handle in a way that makes sense to most people.
So what do you guys think?
