Susan, I'm sorry why would Judy need to be accountable for anything. She knew exactly why I was intentionally lying. I acknowledged I was lying as well.
It's just hypocritical for you to create categories and grades of lies. Barry, Vaj and Curtis lie regularly though Curtis much more subtle, complex. And they don't even admit to their lying and deception, they have so much emotional investment. Just because I stretch the limits and go overboard in my lying that you are forced to even acknowledge, confront it. Curtis starts acting like a wimp, a victim. This is just ridiculous and hypocritical. On Jan 8, 2012, at 3:59 PM, "Susan" <waybac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > > > > > > My perspective on Judy has certainly changed over time. From one of > > mostly a critic to someone who often respects and is in agreement with > > her opinions and observations. > > > > But here is something I have found instructive. Judy was asked, twice, > > if she felt Ravi had gone overboard in his slandering of Curtis. (New > > Years Eve incident) (Please allow me proceed with this term, since > > there has been no evidence to suggest that Curtis engaged in the > > behavior for which he accused) > > > > She was asked this question by someone who I consider an honest broker > > -wayback71. Judy evidently objected to the way the question was phrased > > and would not answer it. Later on she finally provided some answer. > > By that time I did not pay much attention to it, but one thing she said > > was, and I believe I have the quote correct, or correct enough, "Susan > > knows I don't endorse lying..." > > > > Well, if a person doesn't endorse lying, then at one point do you stand > > up and oppose it? > > Exactly. We all know Judy would normally stand up right away - within seconds > - if someone, anyone, even a friend, was lying. She missed this one. > > > > > Then today, in an exchange with Curtis, we find that this oppostion to > > "lying" is conditional as to whether a person "deserves" to be defended > > from lying. Evidently she feels, or felt that Curtis was not entitled > > to this defending. Or that the slander was not sufficient enough to > > warrant addressing it. Well if that is the case, then don't make a > > blanket statment that "so and so knows I oppose lying" > > > > What do you think? > > > > Of course I agree with you! As you said, I did ask her twice, humbling myself > the second time so as give her an chance to answer. Judy could have used that > question to begin to distance herself from Ravi's lie, from anyone's lying in > a hurtful and malicious way here. But she dug in. > > I too find many of Judy's posts interesting and filled with intelligence and > honesty. That is why I was so surprised that she would not call Ravi on > intentionally lying about Curtis. Judy was right - I do know that she opposes > lying, but IMO she went astray on this one and should have piped up. > > I suspect that at this point, regardless of all the other complex discussion, > Judy made a few bad choices on this one. She can be Ravi's friend, ignore or > call him on lies, and move on. Basically I think we all share the same > feeling that gross and malicious lying about significant issues - the kind of > stuff that can hurt your reputation out in real life - is not welcome here, > not about anyone. > >
