--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "RoryGoff" <roryg...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> * * How do you know for sure that he is not operating > unconsciously, out of blind pain? It seems like the best > hypothesis to me. Neat, let's excuse all lies that way. > J: > Tell you what, let's see if, after reading your post, he > > admits to having misread Tart's meaning. > > * * But, if he were a liar, couldn't he now just claim that > he did misread it, as an easy way to avoid admitting that > he consciously intended to deceive? Sure. But I'm betting he's too attached to the desire to mislead to admit error. And that will tell us something. > More likely, he will ignore the whole thing, which still > doesn't prove anything either way. My point is, we can > never really know with full certainty; all we are doing > is cooking up stories to try to "explain" Vaj's behavior. > Much as Vaj is apparently attempting to do with MMY. Look, we can cook up stories to explain away all kinds of misdeeds. All very saintly, but it isn't likely to help the miscreants see the light, so the misdeeds continue, doing their damage with no accountabilility. It's a matter of not letting your mind be so open that your brains fall out, as far as I'm concerned. YMMV.
