Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (23645)	8/21/2001 10:34:51 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 82486

Exactly so. JLA

To: Lane3 who wrote (23645)	8/21/2001 10:40:29 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

<< I think the likelihood of brees lying in any given circumstance is not worthy of your consideration. >> That's what we've been trying to tell her for days.

To: Lane3 who wrote (23645)	8/21/2001 2:06:41 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

People who place a personal value on truth tell lies by rationalizing them, Karen. Thats HOW they do it. It's how brees does it. And in this case, he had a team of after-the-fact helpers. Who did not, in the long run, help him. He needs to learn not to do what he has done this time and other times: offering his characterizations as attributions. Again: He rationalizes his lies. That is a step up from lying without a rationalizing, but the effect on the victims of his lies is the same. If you would feel better calling him a purveyor of untruths, because 'liar' seems to connote an unawareness you believe brees to lack, of his untruthfulness, I'll go with that. Edit: How about 'distortionist for self-serving rhetorical purposes'!? How about 'sloppy writer when convenient for purposes of calumniating'?! I can think of lots of phases that explain putting demonizing words an enemy didn't say about herself in her mouth and refusing to produce a single item of proof.