Anth,

I cannot remain friends with anyone who lies in the face of those that know better.  For example:

By "accepting" historical revisionism as acceptable behavior for your friend Glen, you have slapped every ex here in the face.  To wit, if Glen is telling the truth, then Joe and Jim are LIARS!  So which is it?  There is no middle ground for interpretation here.

Personally, I will NOT count as a friend anyone who "intentionally lies" to the detriment of my other friends.  Quite frankly, I don't even know Glen, but his attempts at historical revisionism slap my face, too.  Joan and the rest are the same!  So, no, I cannot nor will I ever say Glen is a "nice guy" or could even be a friend because he lied and he knew he was lying.  Helping your lard is one thing, lying for him is entirely different.  Historical revisionism is NOT the same thing as "believing" or any of that stuff. 

No, I will not count as friends anyone who lies to me.  They can tell me how they feel about who M is and I can disagree..... those are beliefs and feelings.  Revising history to the point of insulting my intelligence is LYING, not a difference of opinion.  See what I mean?