RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
Share platitudinated irrelevantly: > I think Truth is something huge, that cannot really be completely conveyed > in words > alone. Unless the speaker or writer is communicating from a very settled and > integrated level > of consciousness. Duh. However, we haven't been talking about "Truth," we've been talking about truths, mundane facts as opposed to falsehoods, which can easily be "completely conveyed in words alone" if one is honest. No need for an exalted level of consciousness for those. > OTOH, unless someone has a nefarious intention, I think most people try to > communicate > truthfully. But each of us is limited by our connection to Truth. The most > trustworthy > people, imho, are those who recognize this and intend to become more and > more truthful. Yes, most folks on FFL, thank goodness, do try to communicate truthfully. However, there are several "bad apples" here who repeatedly lie to gain advantage over a critic, or to defend themselves from a valid criticism, or even just for fun because they enjoy lying. Those kinds of lies are terribly destructive to any feeling of community on FFL, and those of us who just let them go by (or worse, try to distract us from them or make excuses for them) are enabling that destructiveness. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Richard J. Williams wrote: Maybe, but I almost always suspect someone of not being totally honest when they post as an anonymous informant. I used to post under various handles until I got outed, and so I decided when I retired, I would just use my real name. I've got nothing to hide and nobody can fire me from my job since I'm self-employed now. But using a handle is no biggie to me because I understand why some people need to keep their privacy. But, I did get a little paranoid reading Bill's post where he claimed Ravi had stalked or threatened, to what - expose Bill and his wife. What's up with that? That's when things get REALLY nasty around here - I wouldn't blame Rick if he shut down the whole discussion group, if that's what going to happen here on a regular basis! It is always troubling to see someone get banned from the group. Where I used to work, you had to really screw up big time to get fired - like smoking pot in the parking lot or something like that. Hardly anyone gets banned on FFL - Kirk got banned for cursing too. Go figure. And, I don't care if people post mean things about me sometimes - it could always just be a joke of some kind - like when Barry2 posted that my real name was Walter White. LoL! On 11/27/2013 8:49 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ We are not face-to-face on FFL, it's all words, words, words. There are those here who make a big deal of their integrity. Perhaps that is a suspect trait.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I've been an respondent on the internet since 1999, so it's not like I'm a newbie or something. And it's been my observation that Judy has a really big ego, maybe bigger even than Barry, and that's saying a lot! There are facts and there are opinions - facts can be argued, but an opinion stands no matter what, and that's everyone's right to express - you may not agree, but there should be no excuse for slandering your debating opponents. It's like when some people call others 'nazis' all the time - it soon loses its force, and in the end doesn't do justice to the real nazi victims. At first I thought Judy was being very astute when she called Barry a liar over and over again; then she started going after me with the same tactic. For awhile I thought there was something wrong with me and that maybe I did lack integrity. But now, after Judy called Buck a liar for no reason at all, I've come to the conclusion that Judy is simply a well-poisoner. That's her style I guess. Hey, I'm all for truthfulness and personal integrity, but I'm just not sure dialoging with anonymous informants in an online chat-room is the place to prove it - this is supposed to fun, not a trial by a one-person judge and jury. But, it has reached a level now that she's calling almost everyone a liar, a troll, and/or a poser. At this point, she's just a very unpleasant person to deal with and not very informative either. And, there's no relief when anyone starts up a dialog with her - it's incessant and endless. Barry is a case in point - from what I can tell, Judy carries a grudge for a very, very long time. Go figure. P.S. You may have noticed that Judy does NOT respond very elegantly to constructive criticism. If anyone can point to an untruth I've posted, please let me know and point my error - be specific, so we can resolve any misunderstandings. Thanks in advance. On 11/27/2013 10:33 AM, Share Long wrote: I think Truth is something huge, that cannot really be completely conveyed in words alone. Unless the speaker or writer is communicating from a very settled and integrated level of consciousness. OTOH, unless someone has a nefarious intention, I think most people try to communicate truthfully. But each of us is limited by our connection to Truth. The most trustworthy people, imho, are those who recognize this and intend to become more and more truthful. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Richard J. Williams mailto:punditster@... wrote: Maybe, but I almost always suspect someone of not being totally honest when they post as an anonymous informant. I used to post under various handles until I got outed, and so I decided when I retired, I would just use my real name. I've got nothing to hide and nobody can fire me from my job since I'm self-employed now. But using a handle is no biggie to me because I understand why some people need to keep their privacy. But, I did get a little paranoid reading Bill's post where he claimed Ravi had stalked or threatened, to what - expose Bill and his wife. What's up with that? That's when things get REALLY nasty around here - I wouldn't blame Rick if he shut down the whole discussion group, if that's what going to happen here on a regular basis! It is always troubling to see someone get banned from the group. Where I used to work, you had to really screw up big time to get fired - like smoking pot in the parking lot or something like that. Hardly anyone gets banned on FFL - Kirk got banned for cursing too. Go figure. And, I don't care if people post mean things about me sometimes - it could always just be a joke of some kind - like when Barry2 posted that my real name was Walter White. LoL! On 11/27/2013 8:49 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ We are not face-to-face on FFL, it's all words, words, words. There are those here who make a big deal of their integrity. Perhaps that is a suspect trait.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
Share, do you want to take a crack at explaining why what Richard keeps posting constitutes a "lie" on Judy's part? As one of the "two peas in a pod", do you get it? It makes no sense to me at all, but I'm willing to try and understand what Richard is putting forth. Objectively, of course. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: What is she going to say? She's been caught telling a deliberate untruth and she can't refute it. Go figure. On 11/27/2013 9:06 PM, Share Long wrote: Judy asked if there was an echo in here. I guess she hasn't noticed how many times she's posted about refutation, etc. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:02 PM, Richard J. Williams mailto:punditster@... wrote: This your your style I guess. On 11/27/2013 6:03 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote: I've been an respondent on the internet since 1999, so it's not like I'm a newbie or something. And it's been my observation that Judy has a really big ego, maybe bigger even than Barry, and that's saying a lot! There are facts and there are opinions - facts can be argued, but an opinion stands no matter what, and that's everyone's right to express - you may not agree, but there should be no excuse for slandering your debating opponents. It's like when some people call others 'nazis' all the time - it soon loses its force, and in the end doesn't do justice to the real nazi victims. At first I thought Judy was being very astute when she called Barry a liar over and over again; then she started going after me with the same tactic. For awhile I thought there was something wrong with me and that maybe I did lack integrity. But now, after Judy called Buck a liar for no reason at all, I've come to the conclusion that Judy is simply a well-poisoner. That's her style I guess. Hey, I'm all for truthfulness and personal integrity, but I'm just not sure dialoging with anonymous informants in an online chat-room is the place to prove it - this is supposed to fun, not a trial by a one-person judge and jury. But, it has reached a level now that she's calling almost everyone a liar, a troll, and/or a poser. At this point, she's just a very unpleasant person to deal with and not very informative either. And, there's no relief when anyone starts up a dialog with her - it's incessant and endless. Barry is a case in point - from what I can tell, Judy carries a grudge for a very, very long time. Go figure. P.S. You may have noticed that Judy does NOT respond very elegantly to constructive criticism. If anyone can point to an untruth I've posted, please let me know and point my error - be specific, so we can resolve any misunderstandings. Thanks in advance. On 11/27/2013 10:33 AM, Share Long wrote: I think Truth is something huge, that cannot really be completely conveyed in words alone. Unless the speaker or writer is communicating from a very settled and integrated level of consciousness. OTOH, unless someone has a nefarious intention, I think most people try to communicate truthfully. But each of us is limited by our connection to Truth. The most trustworthy people, imho, are those who recognize this and intend to become more and more truthful. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Richard J. Williams mailto:punditster@... wrote: Maybe, but I almost always suspect someone of not being totally honest when they post as an anonymous informant. I used to post under various handles until I got outed, and so I decided when I retired, I would just use my real name. I've got nothing to hide and nobody can fire me from my job since I'm self-employed now. But using a handle is no biggie to me because I understand why some people need to keep their privacy. But, I did get a little paranoid reading Bill's post where he claimed Ravi had stalked or threatened, to what - expose Bill and his wife. What's up with that? That's when things get REALLY nasty around here - I wouldn't blame Rick if he shut down the whole discussion group, if that's what going to happen here on a regular basis! It is always troubling to see someone get banned from the group. Where I used to work, you had to really screw up big time to get fired - like smoking pot in the parking lot or something like that. Hardly anyone gets banned on FFL - Kirk got banned for cursing too. Go figure. And, I don't care if people post mean things about me sometimes - it could always just be a joke of some kind - like when Barry2 posted that my real name was Walter White. LoL! On 11/27/2013 8:49 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth http://lies
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: What is she going to say? She's been caught telling a deliberate untruth and she can't refute it. Go figure. On 11/27/2013 9:06 PM, Share Long wrote: Judy asked if there was an echo in here. I guess she hasn't noticed how many times she's posted about refutation, etc. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:02 PM, Richard J. Williams mailto:punditster@... wrote: This your your style I guess. On 11/27/2013 6:03 PM, authfriend@... mailto:authfriend@... wrote: This is all trolling, stuff Richard made up. If anyone here takes Richard seriously enough to want a detailed refutation, let me know. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, mailto:punditster@... wrote: I've been an respondent on the internet since 1999, so it's not like I'm a newbie or something. And it's been my observation that Judy has a really big ego, maybe bigger even than Barry, and that's saying a lot! There are facts and there are opinions - facts can be argued, but an opinion stands no matter what, and that's everyone's right to express - you may not agree, but there should be no excuse for slandering your debating opponents. It's like when some people call others 'nazis' all the time - it soon loses its force, and in the end doesn't do justice to the real nazi victims. At first I thought Judy was being very astute when she called Barry a liar over and over again; then she started going after me with the same tactic. For awhile I thought there was something wrong with me and that maybe I did lack integrity. But now, after Judy called Buck a liar for no reason at all, I've come to the conclusion that Judy is simply a well-poisoner. That's her style I guess. Hey, I'm all for truthfulness and personal integrity, but I'm just not sure dialoging with anonymous informants in an online chat-room is the place to prove it - this is supposed to fun, not a trial by a one-person judge and jury. But, it has reached a level now that she's calling almost everyone a liar, a troll, and/or a poser. At this point, she's just a very unpleasant person to deal with and not very informative either. And, there's no relief when anyone starts up a dialog with her - it's incessant and endless. Barry is a case in point - from what I can tell, Judy carries a grudge for a very, very long time. Go figure. P.S. You may have noticed that Judy does NOT respond very elegantly to constructive criticism. If anyone can point to an untruth I've posted, please let me know and point my error - be specific, so we can resolve any misunderstandings. Thanks in advance. On 11/27/2013 10:33 AM, Share Long wrote: I think Truth is something huge, that cannot really be completely conveyed in words alone. Unless the speaker or writer is communicating from a very settled and integrated level of consciousness. OTOH, unless someone has a nefarious intention, I think most people try to communicate truthfully. But each of us is limited by our connection to Truth. The most trustworthy people, imho, are those who recognize this and intend to become more and more truthful. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Richard J. Williams mailto:punditster@... wrote: Maybe, but I almost always suspect someone of not being totally honest when they post as an anonymous informant. I used to post under various handles until I got outed, and so I decided when I retired, I would just use my real name. I've got nothing to hide and nobody can fire me from my job since I'm self-employed now. But using a handle is no biggie to me because I understand why some people need to keep their privacy. But, I did get a little paranoid reading Bill's post where he claimed Ravi had stalked or threatened, to what - expose Bill and his wife. What's up with that? That's when things get REALLY nasty around here - I wouldn't blame Rick if he shut down the whole discussion group, if that's what going to happen here on a regular basis! It is always troubling to see someone get banned from the group. Where I used to work, you had to really screw up big time to get fired - like smoking pot in the parking lot or something like that. Hardly anyone gets banned on FFL - Kirk got banned for cursing too. Go figure. And, I don't care if people post mean things about me sometimes - it could always just be a joke of some kind - like when Barry2 posted that my real name was Walter White. LoL! On 11/27/2013 8:49 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ We are not face-to-face on FFL, it's all words, words, words. There ar
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
Richard, A well poisoner. Nice observation, including all the rest you wrote. In post 363322 perhaps there is a clue. In a response to Share authfriend wrote: "P.S.: You're quite right about my childhood, albeit not in the way you hope. I had a happy, stress-free childhood with two parents who loved me deeply and steadfastly. They passed on their own devotion to authenticity and loathing of phoniness to me." Whatever she feels is non authentic gets a dose of loathing, i.e., a feeling of intense dislike or disgust; hatred (that is the definition of the word). If you want to change the world, loathing is not the emotion I would want to operate from; it is the antithesis of acceptance, which is what spirituality develops (sometimes anyway). Loathing is the emotion you want to instill if you want to pass on intolerance. It is a blinding emotion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I've been an respondent on the internet since 1999, so it's not like I'm a newbie or something. And it's been my observation that Judy has a really big ego, maybe bigger even than Barry, and that's saying a lot! There are facts and there are opinions - facts can be argued, but an opinion stands no matter what, and that's everyone's right to express - you may not agree, but there should be no excuse for slandering your debating opponents. It's like when some people call others 'nazis' all the time - it soon loses its force, and in the end doesn't do justice to the real nazi victims. At first I thought Judy was being very astute when she called Barry a liar over and over again; then she started going after me with the same tactic. For awhile I thought there was something wrong with me and that maybe I did lack integrity. But now, after Judy called Buck a liar for no reason at all, I've come to the conclusion that Judy is simply a well-poisoner. That's her style I guess. Hey, I'm all for truthfulness and personal integrity, but I'm just not sure dialoging with anonymous informants in an online chat-room is the place to prove it - this is supposed to fun, not a trial by a one-person judge and jury. But, it has reached a level now that she's calling almost everyone a liar, a troll, and/or a poser. At this point, she's just a very unpleasant person to deal with and not very informative either. And, there's no relief when anyone starts up a dialog with her - it's incessant and endless. Barry is a case in point - from what I can tell, Judy carries a grudge for a very, very long time. Go figure. P.S. You may have noticed that Judy does NOT respond very elegantly to constructive criticism. If anyone can point to an untruth I've posted, please let me know and point my error - be specific, so we can resolve any misunderstandings. Thanks in advance. On 11/27/2013 10:33 AM, Share Long wrote: I think Truth is something huge, that cannot really be completely conveyed in words alone. Unless the speaker or writer is communicating from a very settled and integrated level of consciousness. OTOH, unless someone has a nefarious intention, I think most people try to communicate truthfully. But each of us is limited by our connection to Truth. The most trustworthy people, imho, are those who recognize this and intend to become more and more truthful. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Richard J. Williams mailto:punditster@... wrote: Maybe, but I almost always suspect someone of not being totally honest when they post as an anonymous informant. I used to post under various handles until I got outed, and so I decided when I retired, I would just use my real name. I've got nothing to hide and nobody can fire me from my job since I'm self-employed now. But using a handle is no biggie to me because I understand why some people need to keep their privacy. But, I did get a little paranoid reading Bill's post where he claimed Ravi had stalked or threatened, to what - expose Bill and his wife. What's up with that? That's when things get REALLY nasty around here - I wouldn't blame Rick if he shut down the whole discussion group, if that's what going to happen here on a regular basis! It is always troubling to see someone get banned from the group. Where I used to work, you had to really screw up big time to get fired - like smoking pot in the parking lot or something like that. Hardly anyone gets banned on FFL - Kirk got banned for cursing too. Go figure. And, I don't care if people post mean things about me sometimes - it could always just be a joke of some kind - like when Barry2 posted that my real name was Walter White. LoL! On 11/27/2013 8:49 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ We are not face-to-face on FFL, it's all words, words, words. There are those here who ma
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
I like Curtis, but I found him to be emotionally duplicitous - that means acting one way, while feeling another. Its a gut thing, Barry, so I cannot explain it further. Except to say that Curtis is not unique in that regard, and I show no prejudice, personally, towards him, as I avoid all of those who are ignorant of their true natures, equally. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Richard, > > A well poisoner. Nice observation, including all the rest you wrote. In post > 363322 perhaps there is a clue. In a response to Share authfriend wrote: > > "P.S.: You're quite right about my childhood, albeit not in the way you hope. > I had a happy, stress-free childhood with two parents who loved me deeply and > steadfastly. They passed on their own devotion to authenticity and loathing > of phoniness to me." > > Whatever she feels is non authentic gets a dose of loathing, i.e., a feeling > of intense dislike or disgust; hatred (that is the definition of the word). > If you want to change the world, loathing is not the emotion I would want to > operate from; it is the antithesis of acceptance, which is what spirituality > develops (sometimes anyway). Loathing is the emotion you want to instill if > you want to pass on intolerance. It is a blinding emotion. In the talk on how to detect and deal with liars I viewed as part of an internal IBM education program, the speaker pointed out one particular facial expression that one should *always* be wary of. He showed a photo of Dick Cheney, wearing a snarl characterized by one side of his mouth raised higher than the other and said, "This is *contempt*. Whenever you see it, when in a business meeting, *don't* sign the contract, and instead just get up and leave the room. That is what the other person really thinks of you, and it's never going to change." The aspect of this whole routine that always amazes me when someone trots out the supposedly derogatory buzzphrase "phony" is that the person using this term never seems to be able to define "what" the target of their contempt is being a "phony" AT. The belief at the heart of hurling the epithet "phony" is that the person they are hurling it at is *pretending* to be something that they're not. I suggest that this is pure projection, coming in almost every case from people whose *whole lives* are about pretending to be something they're not. Such people really *cannot comprehend* other people who have no need to do this, so they constantly project their own insecure need to "project an image" onto those they dislike, incorrectly (in many cases) assuming that their contempt-objects have such a need as well. The classic example of this, of course, is Judy trying to deal with someone like Curtis. In my opinion, there have been no posters on this forum more comfortable with just being what they are than Curtis. I don't think I ever saw him "pretend" to be anything other than what he was...the "sum state" of his life, all that had led up to him being who and what he was, in that moment. But to Judy, he was a "phony." A "phony" WHAT, Judy? *What* exactly did you believe that Curtis was trying to pretend to be? *What* exactly do you think that Share is trying to be, or that I am trying to be when you call us "phonies?" *Why* do you think that someone would ever have the need to try to "project an image" and convince other people to believe it? Could it possibly be because that's what YOU do, on a pretty much constant basis? Which of the people you have claimed were "phonies," for instance, have ever said something as stupid and as *obviously* untrue as "I never lie?" YOU have said this, many times, and everyone here except you knows immediately that it's not true, and that you're lying when you say it. Wouldn't that make YOU the phony in this scenario? When you pretend to "know" what people "really" mean by what they wrote, when there is no possible way for you to "know" that, aren't YOU being the "phony?" Save your contempt for yourself, Judy. You're the one who demonstrates the behavior you claim to loathe the most on this forum. > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@ wrote: > > I've been an respondent on the internet since 1999, so it's not like I'm a > newbie or something. And it's been my observation that Judy has a really big > ego, maybe bigger even than Barry, and that's saying a lot! There are facts > and there are opinions - facts can be argued, but an opinion stands no matter > what, and that's everyone's right to express - you may not agree, but there > should be no excuse for slandering your debating opponents. > > It's like when some people call others 'nazis' all the time - it soon loses > its force, and in the end doesn't do justice to the real nazi victims. > > At first I thought Judy was being very astute when she called Barry a liar > over and over
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
I miss Curtis too. He has a solid, practical nature, and expresses it masterfully.
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
Barry wrote: > Which of the people you have claimed were "phonies," for instance, have ever > said something as stupid > and as *obviously* untrue as "I never lie?" YOU. Many times, pretending to quote me. > YOU have said this, many times, I can't find one single instance in the archives of my ever having said those words here. Can you?
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
Dr. Dumbass wrote: > > I like Curtis, but I found him to be emotionally duplicitous - that > > means acting one way, while feeling another. Barry remarked: > Whereas you felt completely comfortable with Robin's overuse > (combined with bad writing) of "irony," the very definition of > which is saying one thing and meaning another. I understand. :-) Irony is designed to be understood as such, and most people know it when they see it. But Barry has always had a hard time recognizing irony, which is one big reason why Robin made him so uncomfortable--he could never be sure when Robin was being ironic. Curtis, in stark contrast, went to considerable lengths to hide his emotional duplicity. Barry's never been good at detecting that either, which is why he describes Curtis as "WYSIWYG."
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
No big deal - You, however, strike me as a lot more emotionally honest, than Curtis. Weird, huh? Seriously, you sometimes express yourself in a hostile and negative way, and own it, but ol' Curt, blinded with his stories of who he was, was just so gosh darned folksy jokesy, until his shit leaked out sideways, that I found him too weird to interact with, after awhile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, doctordumbass@... wrote: > > I like Curtis, but I found him to be emotionally duplicitous - that > means acting one way, while feeling another. Whereas you felt completely comfortable with Robin's overuse (combined with bad writing) of "irony," the very definition of which is saying one thing and meaning another. I understand. :-) > Its a gut thing, Barry, so I cannot explain it further. Except to > say that Curtis is not unique in that regard, and I show no prejudice, > personally, towards him, as I avoid all of those who are ignorant of > their true natures, equally. Since that includes pretty much everyone who doesn't claim to be as "enlightened" as you are, I think it's noble of you to have anything to do with us at all. That was irony, just in case your "gut thing" didn't detect it. :-) We may agree to disagree about Curtis if you like. I found him to be one of the *most* WSIWYG people I've ever encountered. I miss *his* honesty here, because it presented such a contrast to those who put on such a show of being honest for their perceived "audience," but are duplicitous to the core. Maybe that's why they hounded him until he didn't feel it was worth his time to participate here any more. > ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > turquoiseb@ wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, > wrote: > > > > Richard, > > > > A well poisoner. Nice observation, including all the rest you wrote. In post 363322 perhaps there is a clue. In a response to Share authfriend wrote: > > > > "P.S.: You're quite right about my childhood, albeit not in the way you hope. I had a happy, stress-free childhood with two parents who loved me deeply and steadfastly. They passed on their own devotion to authenticity and loathing of phoniness to me." > > > > Whatever she feels is non authentic gets a dose of loathing, i.e., a feeling of intense dislike or disgust; hatred (that is the definition of the word). If you want to change the world, loathing is not the emotion I would want to operate from; it is the antithesis of acceptance, which is what spirituality develops (sometimes anyway). Loathing is the emotion you want to instill if you want to pass on intolerance. It is a blinding emotion. > > > In the talk on how to detect and deal with liars I viewed as part of an internal IBM education program, the speaker pointed out one particular facial expression that one should *always* be wary of. He showed a photo of Dick Cheney, wearing a snarl characterized by one side of his mouth raised higher than the other and said, "This is *contempt*. Whenever you see it, when in a business meeting, *don't* sign the contract, and instead just get up and leave the room. That is what the other person really thinks of you, and it's never going to change." > > > > > The aspect of this whole routine that always amazes me when someone trots out the supposedly derogatory buzzphrase "phony" is that the person using this term never seems to be able to define "what" the target of their contempt is being a "phony" AT. The belief at the heart of hurling the epithet "phony" is that the person they are hurling it at is *pretending* to be something that they're not. > > I suggest that this is pure projection, coming in almost every case from people whose *whole lives* are about pretending to be something they're not. Such people really *cannot comprehend* other people who have no need to do this, so they constantly project their own insecure need to "project an image" onto those they dislike, incorrectly (in many cases) assuming that their contempt-objects have such a need as well. > > The classic example of this, of course, is Judy trying to deal with someone like Curtis. In my opinion, there have been no posters on this forum more comfortable with just being what they are than Curtis. I don't think I ever saw him "pretend" to be anything other than what he was...the "sum state" of his life, all that had led up to him being who and what he was, in that moment. But to Judy, he was a "phony." > > A "phony" WHAT, Judy? *What* exactly did you believe that Curtis was trying to pretend to be? *What* exactly do you think that Share is trying to be, or that I am trying to be when you call us "phonies?" *Why* do you think that someone would ever have the need to try to "project an image" and convince oth
RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
Actually, having been caught lying about what I've said, Barry is now pretending it wasn't the "never" that had him so exercised: "Researchers into lying would find this claim rather suspect, because in their studies they've never found a single individual who *never* lies." "Science tells us that human beings tell on the average 25 lies a day. A self-honest person can look at themselves and realize that they tell lies, too, if only to themselves. Only an idiot would claim, 'I never lie.'" > Ah, the patented Steinian Nitpick Lie. :-) Uh-huh. If it were just a nitpick, how come Barry has for years been so careful to make it "never lie" every time he wants to attack me for...uh...not lying? > Now Judy's going to pretend that 41 instances of "I don't lie" don't add up > to a declaration of "I never lie." Well, "don't" certainly doesn't have the same appeal as "never" for Barry. There must be a reason why he always misquotes me as saying "never." Could it be that it's not quite so easy to accuse me of lying when I say "I don't lie" as it would be if I had said "I never lie"? Could it be that "I don't lie" and "I never lie" aren't actually equivalent, and Barry is well aware of it? The fun thing is that while there are innumerable documented instances in the archives of Barry lying, there aren't any of me lying. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/msearch?date=any&DM=&DD=&DY=&DM2=&DD2=&DY2=&AM=contains&AT=authfriend&SM=contains&ST=&MM=contains&MT=%22I+don%27t+lie%22&charset=UTF-8 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/msearch?date=any&DM=&DD=&DY=&DM2=&DD2=&DY2=&AM=contains&AT=authfriend&SM=contains&ST=&MM=contains&MT=%22I+don%27t+lie%22&charset=UTF-8 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Judy Stein wrote: > > > Barry wrote: > > > > Which of the people you have claimed were "phonies," for > > instance, have ever said something as stupid > > and as *obviously* untrue as "I never lie?" > > YOU. Many times, pretending to quote me. > > > YOU have said this, many times, > > I can't find one single instance in the archives of my ever having said those > words here. > > Can you? >
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
Still infuriated, Xeno seethed: > A well poisoner. Nice observation, including all the rest you wrote. "Nice," but false. > In post 363322 perhaps there is a clue. In a response to Share authfriend > wrote: Hypocrisy and false metaphysics from Xeno too. Not a pretty sight. "P.S.: You're quite right about my childhood, albeit not in the way you hope. I had a happy, stress-free childhood with two parents who loved me deeply and steadfastly. They passed on their own devotion to authenticity and loathing of phoniness to me." Whatever she feels is non authentic gets a dose of loathing, i.e., a feeling of intense dislike or disgust; hatred (that is the definition of the word). If you want to change the world, loathing is not the emotion I would want to operate from; it is the antithesis of acceptance, which is what spirituality develops (sometimes anyway). Loathing is the emotion you want to instill if you want to pass on intolerance. It is a blinding emotion. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I've been an respondent on the internet since 1999, so it's not like I'm a newbie or something. And it's been my observation that Judy has a really big ego, maybe bigger even than Barry, and that's saying a lot! There are facts and there are opinions - facts can be argued, but an opinion stands no matter what, and that's everyone's right to express - you may not agree, but there should be no excuse for slandering your debating opponents. It's like when some people call others 'nazis' all the time - it soon loses its force, and in the end doesn't do justice to the real nazi victims. At first I thought Judy was being very astute when she called Barry a liar over and over again; then she started going after me with the same tactic. For awhile I thought there was something wrong with me and that maybe I did lack integrity. But now, after Judy called Buck a liar for no reason at all, I've come to the conclusion that Judy is simply a well-poisoner. That's her style I guess. Hey, I'm all for truthfulness and personal integrity, but I'm just not sure dialoging with anonymous informants in an online chat-room is the place to prove it - this is supposed to fun, not a trial by a one-person judge and jury. But, it has reached a level now that she's calling almost everyone a liar, a troll, and/or a poser. At this point, she's just a very unpleasant person to deal with and not very informative either. And, there's no relief when anyone starts up a dialog with her - it's incessant and endless. Barry is a case in point - from what I can tell, Judy carries a grudge for a very, very long time. Go figure. P.S. You may have noticed that Judy does NOT respond very elegantly to constructive criticism. If anyone can point to an untruth I've posted, please let me know and point my error - be specific, so we can resolve any misunderstandings. Thanks in advance. On 11/27/2013 10:33 AM, Share Long wrote: I think Truth is something huge, that cannot really be completely conveyed in words alone. Unless the speaker or writer is communicating from a very settled and integrated level of consciousness. OTOH, unless someone has a nefarious intention, I think most people try to communicate truthfully. But each of us is limited by our connection to Truth. The most trustworthy people, imho, are those who recognize this and intend to become more and more truthful. On Wednesday, November 27, 2013 9:21 AM, Richard J. Williams mailto:punditster@... wrote: Maybe, but I almost always suspect someone of not being totally honest when they post as an anonymous informant. I used to post under various handles until I got outed, and so I decided when I retired, I would just use my real name. I've got nothing to hide and nobody can fire me from my job since I'm self-employed now. But using a handle is no biggie to me because I understand why some people need to keep their privacy. But, I did get a little paranoid reading Bill's post where he claimed Ravi had stalked or threatened, to what - expose Bill and his wife. What's up with that? That's when things get REALLY nasty around here - I wouldn't blame Rick if he shut down the whole discussion group, if that's what going to happen here on a regular basis! It is always troubling to see someone get banned from the group. Where I used to work, you had to really screw up big time to get fired - like smoking pot in the parking lot or something like that. Hardly anyone gets banned on FFL - Kirk got banned for cursing too. Go figure. And, I don't care if people post mean things about me sometimes - it could always just be a joke of some kind - like when Barry2 posted that my real name was Walter White. LoL! On 11/27/2013 8:49 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth http://liespotting.com/liespotting-basics/words/ http
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
To be a little more specific, if I may: Curtis pretended to be "comfortable" with who he was, as Barry puts it. But that was a carefully constructed facade, and it took very little in the way of chipping to expose the real Curtis underneath. Anyone who ever tangled with Curtis discovered this. Curtis was "comfortable" with who he was as long as he didn't feel challenged. When he was feeling challenged, it was a very different story: his entire being became totally focused on defending himself and annihilating his challenger, using whatever means he could, no matter how duplicitous, including flat-out lying. Curtis was not a nice guy, and while he fooled quite a few people, I was hardly the only person on FFL to see through his act. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, wrote: I like Curtis, but I found him to be emotionally duplicitous - that means acting one way, while feeling another. Its a gut thing, Barry, so I cannot explain it further. Except to say that Curtis is not unique in that regard, and I show no prejudice, personally, towards him, as I avoid all of those who are ignorant of their true natures, equally. >
RE: RE: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 Ways Liars Use Words To Obscure the Truth
Xeno wrote: > As for authfriend, she said she would not have any discussions with me until > I apologised for > some slight to her phony authenticity, and she has tried to worm out of that > by entering into > a thread I have started or entered myself by 'making a comment' and > proclaiming that to not > be entering a discussion. But of course that is exactly how you enter a > discussion, by making > a comment. If anybody ever thought Xeno had any integrity, the above should change their minds.
