But no, poster A suggesting poster B believes a high school girl is incapable of lying --- which addresses that poster's argument -- is in no way the same thing as saying "the girl is a liar" -- which addresses the student. We make those distinctions for a reason. We are in touch with our rhetorical opponent; we are not in touch with the student.
In full then:
How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended for saying 'bless you'" and "girl was suspended for saying 'bless you'"?
Your witness, counselor.
first of all, I think pretty much everyone here except you realizes that when he said "Because school girls never lie.....right?" he was insinuating that she was lying.....I realize you believe differently.....but then you're never wrong.....right?....
First of all the poster Jeremiah is a she. I know that's not readily obvious but just for clarity.
actually I knew that.....doesn't really matter since BODECEA was the one who said it....
Objection sustained. You got me

See? I'm not always right, Jeremiah is the poster to whom Bo was replying.
But you did address her, whichever her it was, as "he". So there.
But no, that's not what that sentence insinuates
well, yeah.....it does..... its sort of hard to think that "and school girls never lie......right?" is anything except sarcasm.....
It is sarcasm, sure; but being sarcasm doesn't transmogrify what the point is. The two are, to use a phrase you attempted, apples and oranges. Not mutually exclusive. The comment is on Jeremiah's argument. You can make a comment on somebody's argument with or without sarcasm, just as you can use sarcasm without commenting on Jeremiah's argument.
They have nothing to do with each other.
The sentence,
"Girl says she was suspended for saying 'bless you''"
-- is a report of an unproven allegation. The only statement of fact is that the girl made the statement. Which is true, she did. The verb is says. There is no dispute that she said that. Whether that's actually what happened is a whole different can o' worms.
That's why the first one is a non sequitur. It does not follow. And to return to my original point, in journalism that's unethical.
Surely you understand "unethical"?
what does journalism have to do with it......the girl SAID she was suspended for saying "bless you".....she's not a journalist, she's the subject......
As I just bolded for the hard-of-reading, that was my original point about why this thread and the link that feeds it with rhetorical pus, is bullshit. I thought maybe the concept of "unethical" might ring a bell. To an attorney.
I have great sympathy for your clients btw.
Q What's the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
A One's a slimy, bottom-dwelling, scum sucking scavenger; the other is a fish.
We're eating into baseball time. Court will resume .... later. Dress in something more than... briefs.