Christine,
I would answer all of your questions as to my statement of truth being subjective with another question: How would you account for the wide variation in eyewitness statements when all eyewitnesses have ostensibly heard and seen the same thing?
I believe I explained my stance on soliciting information from ones personal secretary, that being that it comes very close to actual self-incrimination, and again there is the personal spin factor which may or may not be dishonest in its motivation. We all see and hear only what we personally see and hear, and this often is at variation with the actual reality.
As a truly liberated soul, I absolutely refuse to make an issue over whether or not I make and serve coffee, something I do excellently and graciously and with flair and panache. To me, anyone who takes umbrage at the noble and fine art of making and serving coffee cannot see the forest for the trees and the fact that there are bigger, more important fish to be fried. I have never to my knowledge had anyone in the corporate arena see me as a "doormat" (your words, not mine) because I do not see who makes and serves the coffee as a feminist issue--quite the contrary.
As for my statement about believing in the legal system and having little faith in its coming down on the side of truth is, I believe, self-explanatory, but here goes a parable: I believe in this storm we are having here in Northern California. I can see it and hear it. Therefore, I believe it. We've had a prolonged drought, and the rain that this storm brings is good for us. And I have little to no faith that all of us will fare the better for this storm. Maybe this isn't the best analogy, but under the circumstances it was the easiest and most expedient to think of. Think on that, if you will.
Holly |
