Wilma,
I don't "try to portray" people as either liars or mental cases.
Whenever you can identify an apparently intentional falsehood, then it
is always fair to say that its falsifier is a liar. He can come up with
other explanations for his falsehood if he wishes. We may believe him or
not, or reserve judgement, as we wish. Still, the publisher of a
falsehood who doesn't recant or correct his falsehood remains a liar.
It's not my duty to pretend I didn't notice it, just to be nice.
That might be true if there were assumptions of "courtesy", which I
understand in a very broad and hardbitten sense. I do business all the
time with people I think are lying to me, but I keep my mouth shut
because the larger social context requires us to do business again in
the future. I am not a hardcore priss about lying. Some social lies are
absolutely essential to decent living! But some are not. These should be
described and reported, for the same reason potholes should be described
and reported.
In any case, there are no assumptions or expectations of courtesy that I
can see in UC-list today. It's all about quarreling and grumbling, isn't
it? I mean statistically: of today's, 8/6/07's, posts, would someone
care to rate them on a "quarrelsome/non-quarrelsome" scale at day's end,
midnight? I think that would be a valuable mirror for UC-list today to
gaze into. (I won't do this work because it would be a conflict of
interest.) It is busily redefining itself as UCQuarrel. What are we all
going to do about this?
-- Tony West
Wilma de Soto wrote:
Second, Did NOT Anthony West (and others) try to portray Glenn NOT only as a
liar and a mental case, but also Ray Rorke repeatedly?
----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
