--- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > Emily, (and Ann) seem to have the capacity to actually > > > converse with Barry and Curtis on some points, and it > > > would be a shame if they lost that capability by becoming > > > more reactionary or antagonistic, regardless of how > > > antagonistic Curtis or Barry might seem. That requires > > > they transcend their psychological 'buttons'. You cannot > > > soften these guys up emotionally, you need to find > > > another approach. > > > > There is no way to "soften up" Barry or Curtis except > > by acquiescing in their dishonesty and thus losing one's > > own integrity. > > The key here is what integrity is construed to be. I am > going to assume, without proof that we would disagree on > this. Let me make a guess, which if wrong, I will admit: > > I would pick the second of these two definitions for myself, > but I sense you would pick the first for yourself, or pick > both; in my estimation, your actions seem to speak for the > first definition as being dominant. > > 1. Adherence to moral and ethical principles; soundness of moral character; > honesty. > > 2. The state of being whole, entire, or undiminished:
Not only would I pick both, I don't see how you can have either one without the other.
