--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "seventhray1" <steve.sundur@> wrote: > <snip> > > > 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. > > She didn't miss it. She chose not to address it, for > reasons she's explained until she's blue in the face. > > <snip> > > 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 explained why I wouldn't answer as well, but you decided > you were going to bug out of the whole discussion, so it > seems you never saw my explanation: Your questions were > disingenuous. > > > 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. > > Oh, wait, maybe you *did* see my explanation after all. > Which means you could easily have formulated the question > straightforwardly and inoffensively after you saw the > explanation, but you chose not to. For example: > > "Judy, I know you oppose lying, but you didn't speak up > about this one of Ravi's. Why not?"
Judy you knew what I was asking and I did not ask it offensively. You chose not to answer at that time. You wanted to address other issues, like Barry. I wanted to point specifically to the lie as the main point. You did not want to and I think you did not feel the lie was the main point. > > That's a perfectly reasonable question, and I wouldn't > have had the slightest hesitation about answering it, > just as I've explained it in other posts. > > I'll also remind you and Steve that I made it clear what > I thought of the lie by referring to it multiple times > as "Ravi's offensive accusation" and saying it was > "obviously untrue." > I followed much of the discussion, but certainly missed a clear statement, multiple times or anytime, that you thought "Ravi's offensive accusation" was "obviously untrue." Glad to hear you said it. Maybe I lost that in reading all the other issues that got triggered. I don't argue in the style you do - don't have that ability even if I wanted to. I like to get to the point and stay on point. To me this whole thing was about a really crude and nasty lie that could hurt someone's work life. It had nothing to do with Barry or Curtis and other people's behaviors and what they mean to you or anyone else.
