Why lie, when people know you are lying?

[CFLarsen]

I've obviously been lied to a lot by campaign operatives, but the striking thing about the way she lied was she knew I knew she was lying, and she did it anyway. There is no word in English that captures that. It almost crosses over from bravado into mental illness.
-said by Tucker Carlson of GW Bush advisor Karen Hughes

I'm no fan of TC, but he got one there.

The question is why. Why do people like Peter Morris lie, even though everyone knows they are lying?

We know the names: John Edward lies. James van Praagh lies. Sylvia Browne lies. Roger Coghill lies. Lucianarchy lies. Karen Boesen lies. To name a few.

They know that we know they are lying.

Is it bravado? They don't care if we know? They are insane? They think they are indestructible, so they lie because they can? They think that nobody listens to skeptics, so they feel they can get away with it? They take pleasure in telling lies?

Sometimes, it can merely be to protect your business: I've been lied to by bosses before, but I can understand the rationale behind those kinds of lies. There's an ulterior motive. But that doesn't fully explain why the people mentioned above lie.

Thoughts?

[Kopji]

The end justifies the means?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Kopji
The end justifies the means?

The "end" being? They already have their congregation of fan(atics). They have nothing to gain from lying to skeptics who don't buy into their claims.

Or do they?

[H3LL]

Isn't it all about gaining time.

Those who know it's a lie must gather evidence to attack. This takes time and is not always successful.

By the time evidence is produced it is old news and provided it is lawful, nothing else happens. Even when illegal, various agencies are so slow to react, if at all, that the lie has the spotlight.

"A lie can run round the world before the truth has its boots on."

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Sometimes, it can merely be to protect your business: I've been lied to by bosses before, but I can understand the rationale behind those kinds of lies. There's an ulterior motive. But that doesn't fully explain why the people mentioned above lie.
Because they have to, or they think they ought to.

[princhester]

I don't think all the people you name lie knowingly. Of those that do, I think the audience for their lies is not those who know they are lying.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by H3LL
Isn't it all about gaining time.

Those who know it's a lie must gather evidence to attack. This takes time and is not always successful.

By the time evidence is produced it is old news and provided it is lawful, nothing else happens. Even when illegal, various agencies are so slow to react, if at all, that the lie has the spotlight.

"A lie can run round the world before the truth has its boots on."

Yes, in some cases, e.g. Sylvia Browne: She has successfully dodged Randi's challenge for almost three years now. But what about those who come here to lie? If their goal was to gain time, then they would stay away.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Because they have to, or they think they ought to.

But why?

[BillC]

I think the names you mention all make a living from their lies, and so they have the dual motive of (a) protecting their business, and (b) not everyone believes, or will trouble to find out, that they are lying.

I saw a TV interview with an American journalist who would work in Brezhnez's Soviet Union and came into daily contact with government officials. It's very similar to Carlson's quote:

"They would lie to you.... but you would know they were lying. Moreover, they would know that you knew they were lying. Yet they continued to do it anyway.... it was a kind of game you both played". (paraphrased from memory)

Clearly in this case, the official's head was on the block if he were not to toe the official line (or lie).

Sometimes, though people continue to lie because to do otherwise would be too humiliating a climbdown. They have taken a thing so far that they now lack a means of backing out of their lie, whether they want to or have been found out and know they are not being believed. Sometimes, continuing to lie is just the easiest thing.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by princhester
I don't think all the people you name lie knowingly. Of those that do, I think the audience for their lies is not those who know they are lying.

Oh, yes, they know:

Peter Morris: Lies when he claims I have said that I have evidence that the $1 million is "cursed".

John Edward: Lies when he claims he didn't hot read Tony Pagano (Dateline).

James van Praagh: Lies when he claims he didn't hot read when Shermer caught him.

Sylvia Browne: Lies about the whole Challenge thing.

Roger Coghill: Lies about his academic knowledge.

Lucianarchy: Lies about his proclaimed psychic abilities, and who he has been tested by.

Karen Boesen: Lies about her academic credentials, invents quotes and events.

None of these people are dumb. They are smart enough to know when they lie. And, again, those who are here, don't need to be.

[asthmatic camel]

JREF Forums > JREF Topics > General Skepticism and The Paranormal > Please don't feed the trolls

Should we attempt to reason or argue with the deranged ramblings of trolls?
Yes - that's what we're here for and we must try to have a reasoned discourse with everyone
No - it detracts from the threads and distracts us from more important subjects
Not sure




I'd say that option 2 in SpaceFluffer's poll above may have a lot to do with it, Claus.

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]Peter Morris: Lies when he claims I have said that I have evidence that the $1 million is "cursed".


I've never known Peter to lie in the classic sense. However, his capacity for self delusion and word games is infinite. I didn't really know Lucianarchy. The others I think just lie professionally. They know damn well they are lying but their profession requires them to maintain that lie otherwise they'd never work again.

[Loon]

Originally posted by princhester
I don't think all the people you name lie knowingly. Of those that do, I think the audience for their lies is not those who know they are lying.

I think these are both big parts of it.

If I say something to you that I believe, and you think it to be false, and I know that you think it to be false, I could have many reasons to say it to you. Perhaps to stress to you that I do beleive. Perhaps to build my faith in my statement by repeating it to a critical audience. Perhaps other reasons.

Even if I know the statement is a lie, there may be people who don't know or who want to believe it (assuming of course, that it somehow helps me to have them believe it...).

It may be that the consequences of telling the truth are bad, such as my candidate getting just shredded at the polls because we admitted to something that everyone pretty much knew anyway but found a reason to deny. Or the Soviet example BillC cited.

Sometimes it's tough to imagine that people we deal with have motives extending beyond us.

[Mojo]

The lie is not necessarily aimed at the person it appears to be addressed to. In some cases people may be lying in the hope of getting away with it to some extent, for example if nobody can be bothered to spend the time needed to dig up the facts to contradict them. Then they can say to their actual target audience "I said [insert lie here] and nobody could refute it."

[Ratman_tf]

Perhaps it's plain old stubborness?

[Donn]

"Why come here and then tell bare-faced lies?" is the question.

My take on the matter is: guilt. I reckon people like Browne or Boesen really know that they are wrong and doing wrong, and they feel guilty about it.
If you feel like a fraud, what can you do to make yourself feel better? You can go to the source of your guilt, you can face the flames and defy them. Like lying to the cops, or the judge.
I reckon they come here and lie because they can then tell themselves: "even the Skeptics could not determine my guilt! I must be in the right."

Does that make any sense?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Perhaps it's plain old stubborness?
I think this is the closest to the real explanation amongst those yet proffered.
Peter Morris lies because to admit, this far in, that he was mistaken would mean loss of face. So he carries on lying in the absurd hope that events will be retroactively changed by a deity favourable to his piety (or merely by sheer force of will; after all, we only use 10% of our brains, right?!), because the one outcome that must never, ever happen according to his deranged view of the universe is that people he viscerally despises, like Randi and Claus, must never, ever be proven right under any circumstances. His view of the universe is black and white; either you're with him or against him (where have I heard that recently?!), and those he views as against him can never be admitted to have a shred of decency; therefore, even when demonstrably in the right, they can't really be telling the truth, can they? Thus the repetition of the lie that Claus said the money was cursed. If he says it enough times, it might just retroactively come true. After all, Dorothy had to click her heels three times whilst chanting, "There's no place like home".
Peter's magic just takes a little longer to work, that's all...
(P.S.: Peter: Remember what happened to Pinocchio when he denied reality...)

[Ladewig]

I've been thinking about a subset of this type of lying recently. I was in the dentist's chair and the assistant came in to clean my teeth. Before she looked in my mouth, she asked me if I flossed. I said, "not enough" and then asked if many people lie when asked that question even though they know they will be caught in their lie within a matter of seconds. She told me that many people do lie. She said that she can't just come out and call the person a liar, so she says, "ah, you must not be flossing correctly, let me show you how." At that point people admit to lying.

[Correa Neto]

Some possibilities came in to my mind:

Ego
Interest (politics, power, economics, etc.)

[Nolan Coppenger]

Simply put the purpose of lying even if you know others know you are lying is to generate the notion among those who do no know you are lying that you are telling the truth, it is for the benefit of the true believers not skeptics, intended to reinforce existing belief in the lie as truth.In some person the lying is pathological in others part of a strategy.

[Pragmatist]

It's quite simple really, its a strategy that works.

Most liars have some sort of ego problem, they are convinced of their own natural "superiority", it leads to the point where they are so sure of it that they assert it violently if necessary. And they find that most people are not so sure of themselves and back down when confronted. So they tend to get away with it by sheer force. It works except when they encounter someone who really does know the truth, is sure of the truth and is prepared to stand up for it. Such people are rare in everyday society.

If you take the average man on the street who knows little about science for example, such liars can often get away with misrepresenting science because that average man is just not sure enough of his own knowledge of science to definitively challenge them. He may end up thnking that it sounds wrong/suspect etc., but if he isn't sure of the facts then he will probably keep quiet and the liar will get away with it. And at the end of the day it's all about saving face in front of the ignorant majority.

Even if somebody does stand up to them and challenge them, most people are simply not prepared to battle it out to the end. So again, the liars know that if they can keep up the pressure for long enough, sooner or later, most reasonable people will fold and they will "win" by default. Let me give an example. A man steals something from a shop. A shop assistant confronts him and says he saw him stealing. The man replies with a loud display of outrage and anger, "How DARE you accuse me of stealing! Do you know who I am! I am OUTRAGED that you could think you could get away with falsely accusing me!" and so on... Meanwhile there are other customers looking on. The liar is making a big scene, most of the customers automatically assume a guilty man wouldn't dare to make such a display so he must be innocent. The poor shop assistant feels very insecure because he knows that most of the customers think he is the one who has done something wrong, made a mistake etc., and at some point he may even start to doubt his own observation. Perhaps he didn't actually see the guy steal. Maybe he was mistaken. Maybe the guy didn't slip that item into his pocket. The liar is winning. Unless the shop assistant is prepared to give battle at the same level and assert the truth loudly in front of the customers himself. "NO! You are a liar! I saw you steal that object!".

But the liar is now in a difficult position. What is his best strategy? If he folds at this point he is lost. He is not only caught for stealing but he also loses face in front of the audience. So maybe it's worth brazening it out further. He accuses the assistant. "I saw you slip that thing into your pocket, now you are trying to cover youself by blaming it on me!" If the assistant says, "I saw you", the liar can use ridicule or other techniques. "Oh, and I'll bet you see pink elephants too?". What can the assistant do? He can demand the liar turn out his pockets, but the liar can refuse to cooperate. The liar can say, "I REFUSE to turn out my pockets as a matter of principle! I have done nothing wrong but I will not compromise my principles by complying with such a demand!" And so on... The question is, just how long is the poor assistant going to keep this up? If he is making no headway at all then there comes a point where it probably isn't worth it anymore and he will just say, "Oh just get out of here!" At this point the liar proudly declares victory in front of the other customers and exits, all the while proclaiming loudly about how terribly he was treated by this awful store and the awful lying, cheating assistant. And the customers will believe the liar.

The important difference is that firstly the liar is never prepared to admit that he might be wrong even when proved wrong. But any reasonable opponent will be prepared to admit that he might have made a mistake, and will own up to specific mistakes if proven wrong. Secondly, the opponent doesn't usually have any significant investment in the battle itself. The liar has to win to escape and save face, the opponent has no particular advantage in winning at any cost, so he is more likely to fold first. The only time the liar is really in hot water is when he is up against people who are sure of the facts and have the guts to stand up to him no matter what other people think. People who have an investment in the truth.

In the rare cases when they lose, what do the liars do? The last resort. Run away and hide for a while. Then they come back and start all over again announcing at the outset that they "won" the last battle - which is of course just another lie. It may work if people have forgotten what happened before (and most average people do). Again they rely on people having short, inaccurate memories and not having the desire to check as well. It's just shifting the lie from the original subject itself to what actually happened before, but otherwise it's the same strategy all over again.

In short it is a form of bullying or intimidation. And it works on most people. The people the liars truly hate are those who are not prepared to be bullied and can give as good as they get. Usually the tactic in that case is to lie about what the opponent did and try to discredit the opponent himself. Denounce the questioner as the bully and try to get public support and sympathy. And that also works often, for the same reasons as the above. Most people don't bother to check.

[c4ts]

Maybe she didn't know she was lying.

[Nex]

Having done it myself, all I can say is that for me, it was a little bit of ego coupled with a lot of self-delusion.

I didn't know I was wrong, and those few times where I did know I was wrong it was to save face. Once I had figured out that I was wrong, I knew I was going to have to either continue lying, or suck it up and say "OK, I screwed up." I opted for plan B. I don't like living lies. Sadly, some do enjoy it.

[flyboy217]

Great question. I think I'll open a separate thread for this one.

[Kopji]

On my comment 'the end justifies the means'. This is usually presented as an argument for the value of belief, rather than that the subject or object of the belief is actually true.

Sylvia Browne's website declares that she donates some of her proceeds to charity. That's an end.

Many outwardly religious people don't "believe", but keep attending as if they did. They enjoy the social interaction and group effort in assisting a variety of causes it would be impossible to impact as an individual. That's an end.

So someone could lie to support 'a greater good', or otherwise lie with an intent to eventually make it right. The short term lie would be seen as acceptable because it served a greater (long term) purpose.

Less often, I meet people who place no value on either a lie or truth in the way we think of it. "Truth" is whatever supports their view of the universe. This is understood as a kind of wisdom. This becomes amusing when a lie is told when the truth would have done just as well.

I have a bias I share even with people who disagree with me: there is a 'good' in understanding something as it 'really' is, not just as it seems. This implies an objective truth somewhere, even if we can only approach it and never absolutely know it.

[steenkh]

The lies that fascinates me the most are politician's lies. The most pathetic example I have seen was when Bill Clinton claimed on TV for the whole world that he had not had an affair with Monica L. Everybody knew he was lying, but what is more interesting is that everybody knew that he would be found out! In countries with a free and aggressive press, there is no chance a politician can get away with that kind of lie. Clinton must have known it, and yet he did it! Even more interesting is that before his lie, he was only in danger of losing moral status, but the lie opened up for an impeachment procedure (at least when he repeated it in front of a senate committee).

In Denmark, we have had a prime minister called Poul Schlüter who also, when questioned about discriminatory practices in the government, chose to lie to parlament, at a stage when the scandal had already blown up in his face. In this case, too, one wonders what made him lie so that the entire population could laugh at him (or grieve over him if you were a partisan).

It seems that people have a tendency to to continue lying when they have their back against the wall, and the lie no longer can do them any good. Perhaps they reason that it is better to go down in flames than just go down.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by steenkh
The lies that fascinates me the most are politician's lies. The most pathetic example I have seen was when Bill Clinton claimed on TV for the whole world that he had not had an affair with Monica L. Everybody knew he was lying, but what is more interesting is that everybody knew that he would be found out! In countries with a free and aggressive press, there is no chance a politician can get away with that kind of lie. Clinton must have known it, and yet he did it! Even more interesting is that before his lie, he was only in danger of losing moral status, but the lie opened up for an impeachment procedure (at least when he repeated it in front of a senate committee).

In Denmark, we have had a prime minister called Poul Schlüter who also, when questioned about discriminatory practices in the government, chose to lie to parlament, at a stage when the scandal had already blown up in his face. In this case, too, one wonders what made him lie so that the entire population could laugh at him (or grieve over him if you were a partisan).

It seems that people have a tendency to to continue lying when they have their back against the wall, and the lie no longer can do them any good. Perhaps they reason that it is better to go down in flames than just go down.

I don't think Bill Clinton knew about the stain on the dress that Monica kept (as any decent girl would -- better than an autograph, huh?) Without this evidence he might have got away with "the benefit of the doubt", at least from supporters.

Anyway, like GWB, Bill didn't lie per se. He was just acting on faulty intelligence -- i.e. that Monica could not prove the affair took place;)

[The Mighty Thor]

I wonder if the occassional Pope, or Bishop, ever came to the realisation that they were not adhering to the truth, yet continued to keep up a pretense for "the ends justify the means", or just for vested interests?

[CFLarsen]

steenkh,

That's an American thing: Clinton simply could not go on national TV and admit to have extramarital sex, no matter what the evidence was.

Discussing sex in the US is at the same level as Denmark in the 50's. No, I'm not kidding! Sex is very much off-limits, taboo even, but still perhaps the biggest interest Americans have. Except for money, of course... ;)

IIRC, a French minister quipped that if a French politician did not have a mistress, he could never become a minister at all... ;)

[The Mighty Thor]

It seems that some people lie because they actually enjoy creating mischief. To them, it is fun to see others harmed by the mere power of their ill will. See my sig.

It's the "Loki" syndrome.

(no offense to my fellow Norse god on the board)

[Operaider]

I think allot of the time people simply don't want something to be true. You see this in children allot. Many of them will deny doing something regardless of the evidence against them, simply because denying it is much easier than coming clean. Especially if someone is accusatory toward you. You might continue lying simply because you don’t want to admit your wrong to someone who is attacking your honesty.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by princhester
I've never known Peter to lie in the classic sense.
You've not been looking hard enough.
Originally posted by the halfwitted liar Peter Morris
Larsen and his dimwitted supporters can spew abuse and hate all they want. They will never erase what Larsen said. He said directly that the money is cursed. He's never been very smart, but the day he wrote that he was a total Kookbreaker.

Folks, Larsen saying that he has evidence of the curse is the dumbest lie in the history of JREF. He can weasel and squirm all he wants, but that is what he said.
Yes, he is saying that CFLarsen, arch-sceptic, claimed that the JREF money is cursed. And yes, he did include the phrase "dumbest lie in the history of JREF" in his post.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Operaider
I think allot of the time people simply don't want something to be true. You see this in children allot. Many of them will deny doing something regardless of the evidence against them, simply because denying it is much easier than coming clean. Especially if someone is accusatory toward you. You might continue lying simply because you don’t want to admit your wrong to someone who is attacking your honesty.

This begs the question: What good can lying do you in a society where people know you? I cannot see any long-term benefits, if everybody knows you are a liar.

Short-term, perhaps: It takes the heat off you, and if you can "lie and bear it" (like the supermarket example), then you don't run any immediate risk. But what good will it do you, if people in the community see you later on?

I'm not even sure that it is because we are communicating via the Internet, and therefore cannot see each other: I've met astrologers, psychics and healers face to face who flat-out lied to me - in front of other people. I pointed it out that they were lying, but they didn't care. And they had to face their customers right after.

Cue to Shermer's book "The Science of Good and Evil". I haven't read it, but I would like to hear if there is anything in it that could explain this.

[Operaider]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This begs the question: What good can lying do you in a society where people know you? I cannot see any long-term benefits, if everybody knows you are a liar.

Short-term, perhaps: It takes the heat off you, and if you can "lie and bear it" (like the supermarket example), then you don't run any immediate risk. But what good will it do you, if people in the community see you later on? I doubt most people think of the long term while lying. And if they do, I suspect they still hold out some hope that they will go undescovered, or that it will just blow over.

It's like when people commit a murder. Even if the odds are against them, everyone is looking for them, and their picture is all over the news. They still don't turn themselves in. Many of them take the chance, however slim, that they will get away with what they've done. Even though running only compounds the problem, it's still more tempting then fessing up.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You've not been looking hard enough.

Yes, he is saying that CFLarsen, arch-sceptic, claimed that the JREF money is cursed. And yes, he did include the phrase "dumbest lie in the history of JREF" in his post. [/B]

And I have no idea why he included me in that post. He seems to be trying to paint me as the drooling idiot of the JREF. I guess its easier to ignore the hard questions when you do that.

[The Don]

Originally posted by steenkh
The lies that fascinates me the most are politician's lies. The most pathetic example I have seen was when Bill Clinton claimed on TV for the whole world that he had not had an affair with Monica L. Everybody knew he was lying, but what is more interesting is that everybody knew that he would be found out!
IIRC on TV all he claimed was that he did not have sexual relations with that woman. He then claimed that he did not lie because he did not consider oral sex to be sexual relations.

[number9]

Politicians don't operate with the same ethics everyone else does. Their job is to get elected, by any means possible. Telling a lie that stands up until the second after you submit your ballot is one means that is possible.

And while they may know that you[/] know they are lying, they may also believe that [i]the two people sitting next to you don't know they're lying.

So the gamble is that they will tell a lie that will end up netting them more lost votes than gained votes.

The real question is, why aren't there more people like Tucker Carlson (who is usually a fully kool-aided true believer) in the media who are willing to excerpt what they know is a lie and tell the rest of us that it's a lie?

And has he ever done it since? I bet his GOP handlers have already docked his pay over it.

[number9]

Originally posted by The Don
IIRC on TV all he claimed was that he did not have sexual relations with that woman. He then claimed that he did not lie because he did not consider oral sex to be sexual relations.

The important thing about Bill Clinton is that he is always right, even in hindsight.

The District of Columbia, which had jurisdiction, does not consider oral sex to be "sexual relations."

He didn't lie. He just didn't tell the whole truth. But then, the press didn't swear him in and make him promise to.

Oh, and there are many definitions for "is", in case anyone is wondering. Every time anyone digs at Bubba for that one, I know they're not thinking.

[Atlas]

Deception is an evolved trait. It has advantage. It also has perceived advantage.

The schoolboy who doesn't know his lesson may be faced with answering the teacher "What is 3+4?" If by chance he says 7 he will learn a lesson. If that lesson is "I don't have to know the truth to be right", he may assume a posture in life that does not value knowledge and truth the same as others.

If one is a two-bit magician whose best trick is spoon bending but who knows people like to be tricked by magic, he may decide to change his patter to something that fills the auditorium and the coffers. These are the individuals who most intrigue me... those willing to live a lie, a deceit, some like J Edwards even convincing themselves they bring light to the grief stricken.

The big advantage to repeating the lie louder and toughing it out when others know you are lieing is that the experience of "winning" in such circumstances prevents the horror of shame and humiliation.

I think those are powerful drivers for all except the individual who really does not see any difference in value between an uttered truth and an uttered lie. Sometimes we love them for their stories, like Falstaff and maybe some learn that you can be liked by telling others of your superhuman prowess, but never get the knack of delighting others in the telling.

The people who are saddest in "living the lie" are preachers who have lost the faith. They can no longer inspire others with the lie he knows they long to hear but he cannot give it up either, for it's all he knows.

[CFLarsen]

Atlas,

Shouldn't these short-term beneficiaries of deceit die out? Become "extinct"? If there is any truth to evolution, they should die out within a few generations?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Atlas,

Shouldn't these short-term beneficiaries of deceit die out? Become "extinct"? If there is any truth to evolution, they should die out within a few generations? That's what one would expect if there was no advantage to lieing. But everyman who has been asked "Do I look fat in this?" knows the value of a calm reassuring lie.

Nature abounds with deceit. Humans carry it to a different level. It's not about survival. It can be about garnering esteem.

Your question is about the liar who spouts though he knows his listeners know. Outside of a Liar's club I can't say I understand the phenomenon. However, every child will try to lie to his parents, even after his parents say "Don't lie." Perhaps it is a parenting skill or nonskill that predicts whether a child liar grows up leaning on the talent.

Mostly though, I wonder if lies sometime fall under superstition. Superstition is a strong reinforcer of behavior. If the occasional lie does end up working to good advantage in one's formative years it could set the stage for a life of falsehoods.

(edit: I remember a guy from my Navy days who was an incredible liar. He wasn't much noticed for anything else. Perhaps it's a way to gain attention for someone who needs to feel alive when nothing else really has worked for him.)

[CFLarsen]

Atlas,

I hear you. But if nature abounds with deceit, then it should be an evolutionary beneficial trait. But if it is, I don't see how it can be.

I'll ask Shermer about this at TAM3. This behavior speaks against not only evidence, but common sense.

[Atlas]

I know this thread is about verbal lies but I just had another thought.

One of the "lies" we celebrate is women's makeup. Some women will not go outdoors without putting on their "face".

Perhaps the liar is doing the same thing. Establishing a "face" - if caught in a blemish, another lie will cover it up, and the liar will again be seen as he wants others to see him.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Atlas
I know this thread is about verbal lies but I just had another thought.

One of the "lies" we celebrate is women's makeup. Some women will not go outdoors without putting on their "face".

Perhaps the liar is doing the same thing. Establishing a "face" - if caught in a blemish, another lie will cover it up, and the liar will again be seen as he wants others to see him.

I would consider that reactive: Anticipating a possible negative response to a possible negative appearance.

What Karen Boesen is doing (to pick an example) is proactive: She creates new lies, which has nothing to do with the claims she is facing.

[gnome]

For politicians--I think it's an instinctive habit, developed over years. Never, ever admit wrongdoing. If they have done so for years to rise to the position they are at, they will find themselves unable to stop, even when it does not serve their interest.

It gets to the point where the lie will come out as quickly as a child trying to get out of trouble. "I didn't do it. I mean, I did if I was supposed to. What was the question?'

[Atlas]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I would consider that reactive: Anticipating a possible negative response to a possible negative appearance.

What Karen Boesen is doing (to pick an example) is proactive: She creates new lies, which has nothing to do with the claims she is facing. I think there are usefule distinctions that can be made about deceit.

In Nature it's instinctual. Creatures lure one another to their doom all the time. Some is also defensive. The Puffer fish blows itself up to several times it's size in hopes it won't be swallowed.

Some lies are done to help others (eg "Do I look fat, honey?).

Many others can be done from poor memory or self aggrandizement (eg: Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story).

Many lies are inconsequential - lies we tell ourselves and our closest friends (eg Yah Jane, I liked that movie too.)

Other lies are done intentionally to inflict harm. (eg Folks, Larsen saying that he has evidence of the curse is the dumbest lie in the history of JREF. He can weasel and squirm all he wants, but that is what he said.) Kind of a tactical combat situation.

But often people will use the tactical for self advantage to. Sandbagging a competitor so that you are chosen for promotion.

[number9]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I hear you. But if nature abounds with deceit, then it should be an evolutionary beneficial trait. But if it is, I don't see how it can be.

Orchids.

In gross, lying is a natural thing. The liar uses information to gain advantage or avoid risk.

It's our morality that determines which sorts of lying we accept. Our morality, or our ignorance.

Or our skepticism.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by gnome
For politicians--I think it's an instinctive habit, developed over years. Never, ever admit wrongdoing. If they have done so for years to rise to the position they are at, they will find themselves unable to stop, even when it does not serve their interest.
For politicians, the future is certain; only the past is flexible.

[Loki]

Thor,

It's the "Loki" syndrome.
Well at least I don't have a fetish for building tools. Really - a hammer? That's so 8th century. You need to move with the times; get yourself an iPod or something.

But Thor's correct - why do people lie? 'Cos I make them - all part of being a somewhat immoral god. Sylvia is my best work yet - I'm so proud of that lying piece of deceit! Frankly, I've been amazed at what we/she have gotten away with - really, people will believe anything nowadays!

[c4ts]

And people wonder why your mouth was sewn shut...

[Atlas]

If we are ready to open this thread to Poster Boy Nominations...

I nominate Baghdad Bob...

http://www.sovietinvasionplan.com/Img/Random/baghdadbob.jpg

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Atlas,

Shouldn't these short-term beneficiaries of deceit die out? Become "extinct"? If there is any truth to evolution, they should die out within a few generations?


Short term? I don't think you are listening, Larsen. You are being very naive.

[princhester]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You've not been looking hard enough.

Yes, he is saying that CFLarsen, arch-sceptic, claimed that the JREF money is cursed. And yes, he did include the phrase "dumbest lie in the history of JREF" in his post. [/B]

No, you're not reading the thread in question closely enough. The whole sorry mess arose out of confusion of the phrases "the money being cursed" and "the claim being made that the money is cursed". Even Larsen confuses the two at times.

I don't think that Morris lied in the deliberate sense at any point. He just totally misunderstood Larsen's point (and vice versa).

Morris has an ability to read what he wants into anything, and when that is combined with Larsens knee jerk combativeness, fireworks ensue. Larsen has a bizarre strategy of wildly attacking Morris' strong points and totally missing where Morris is going wrong.

Morris' point was, as usual, completely dumbass, but Larsen missed what Morris was even trying to say.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by princhester
Short term? I don't think you are listening, Larsen. You are being very naive.

Then explain it to me.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by princhester
No, you're not reading the thread in question closely enough. The whole sorry mess arose out of confusion of the phrases "the money being cursed" and "the claim being made that the money is cursed". Even Larsen confuses the two at times.

I do?

Originally posted by princhester
I don't think that Morris lied in the deliberate sense at any point. He just totally misunderstood Larsen's point (and vice versa).

No. It has been explained to him again and again. Peter Morris does not want to understand. So, he lied.

Originally posted by princhester
Morris has an ability to read what he wants into anything, and when that is combined with Larsens knee jerk combativeness, fireworks ensue.

Yeah, well... "let the fur fly", as the man said.

Originally posted by princhester
Larsen has a bizarre strategy of wildly attacking Morris' strong points and totally missing where Morris is going wrong.

I was not aware that Peter Morris had any strong points at all. What are those?

Originally posted by princhester
Morris' point was, as usual, completely dumbass, but Larsen missed what Morris was even trying to say.

Really? What was Peter Morris trying to say?

[Soapy Sam]

Why do people lie?

Because they can?
Because it's normal human behaviour.

Which raises the obvious question- "Why is it normal human behaviour?"

To which my answer would be, "Because, on average, given that human society is extremely complex, persisting in blatant lies works to the advantage of the liar."

Which, I guess, makes it our fault, for letting it work as a tactic.

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then explain it to me.

There's no need. There is (about) half a dozen posts in this thread already where others have explained how lying works, how it works well, and why.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by princhester
There's no need.

Then I'll never know. And it doesn't matter if I do, either.

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I do?

Not deliberately, but you didn't understand what Peter was asking, and he treated your answer with the same contempt you'd treated his with.

You were happy to put "money cursed" on the list of pathetic excuses on the basis of a cite that someone had made that claim, but you demanded "evidence" before you would put "the test Randi sets is inappropriate" on your list even though Peter had already cited similar evidence that someone had made that claim.

Frankly, the latter was already on the list, but instead of pointing this out, you just had to be knee jerk combative and jump to the conclusion that because Peter gave an example of a claimant who claimed to be able to dowse but claimed that Randi wouldn't test him properly, Peter was saying dowsing worked, which Peter had never said, and so you then proceeding to demand evidence from him for a proposition he'd never advanced.

The end result being that (while it's a rare thing) at that point in the debate I found myself agreeing with Peter when he said in great confusion "evidence of what?"

Peter attempted to get to the bottom of what "evidence" you wanted, and demanded to know why, if you were prepared to put something on the list (cursed money) without evidence of cursed money, you were not prepared to put "unfair dowsing tests" on the list without evidence of dowsing.

Peter asked what evidence you had of cursed money and you said you'd already provided evidence. What you meant was that you'd already provided evidence of the claim, but you didn't understand that he was asking about evidence of the condition

Peter then proceeded to crap on about how you had therefore said you'd provided evidence of actual cursed money (which, proceeding on the assumption you'd understood Peter's question, which you didn't) you'd done.

Peter knew you hadn't meant to say that, he even said he understood you didn't mean to, but he'd trapped you into it, which frankly served you right since you'd not made any attempt to understand where he was coming from, and had then made silly and confusing demands of Peter for evidence of a proposition he'd never advanced in the first place.

You next made an inane argument that Peter's logic couldn't be listened to because you didn't know who he was. And so on and on.

Peter is not someone who (from what I can make out) thinks in the positive sense that the paranormal exists, but rather is a person who is so open minded his brain has fallen out. You always jump to the conclusion he believes dowsing works. He may do I suppose, but he's never said he does so it is never going to get you anywhere to work on the assumption he does.

I don't give a damn if you argue vociferously with Peter, I just don't like the fact you give him such a good reason to believe skeptics are bumptuous over confident prats that don't listen.

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then I'll never know. And it doesn't matter if I do, either.

WTF did you open this thread, with a question in the title, if you don't want to know the answer?

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

Larson is quite possibly a patholigical liar. It is even entirely possible that he does not even realise when he lies. But lie he does, frequently, and it is fasciniating that he should promote such a thread and then state that he doesn't care what the answer is. :D It is there, at that precise point, Larson, that we 'Gotcha!'

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by princhester
Not deliberately, but you didn't understand what Peter was asking, and he treated your answer with the same contempt you'd treated his with.

You were happy to put "money cursed" on the list of pathetic excuses on the basis of a cite that someone had made that claim, but you demanded "evidence" before you would put "the test Randi sets is inappropriate" on your list even though Peter had already cited similar evidence that someone had made that claim.

Frankly, the latter was already on the list, but instead of pointing this out, you just had to be knee jerk combative and jump to the conclusion that because Peter gave an example of a claimant who claimed to be able to dowse but claimed that Randi wouldn't test him properly, Peter was saying dowsing worked, which Peter had never said, and so you then proceeding to demand evidence from him for a proposition he'd never advanced.

The end result being that (while it's a rare thing) at that point in the debate I found myself agreeing with Peter when he said in great confusion "evidence of what?"

Peter attempted to get to the bottom of what "evidence" you wanted, and demanded to know why, if you were prepared to put something on the list (cursed money) without evidence of cursed money, you were not prepared to put "unfair dowsing tests" on the list without evidence of dowsing.

Peter asked what evidence you had of cursed money and you said you'd already provided evidence. What you meant was that you'd already provided evidence of the claim, but you didn't understand that he was asking about evidence of the condition

Peter then proceeded to crap on about how you had therefore said you'd provided evidence of actual cursed money (which, proceeding on the assumption you'd understood Peter's question, which you didn't) you'd done.

Peter knew you hadn't meant to say that, he even said he understood you didn't mean to, but he'd trapped you into it, which frankly served you right since you'd not made any attempt to understand where he was coming from, and had then made silly and confusing demands of Peter for evidence of a proposition he'd never advanced in the first place.

You next made an inane argument that Peter's logic couldn't be listened to because you didn't know who he was. And so on and on.

Peter is not someone who (from what I can make out) thinks in the positive sense that the paranormal exists, but rather is a person who is so open minded his brain has fallen out. You always jump to the conclusion he believes dowsing works. He may do I suppose, but he's never said he does so it is never going to get you anywhere to work on the assumption he does.

I don't give a damn if you argue vociferously with Peter, I just don't like the fact you give him such a good reason to believe skeptics are bumptuous over confident prats that don't listen.

May I remind you that the article is about claims? When I refer to my own article, how can I possibly misunderstand it? How can I not mean "claims"?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by princhester
WTF did you open this thread, with a question in the title, if you don't want to know the answer?

Then I'll never know what you meant.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by De'Ville's Advocaat
Larson is quite possibly a patholigical liar. It is even entirely possible that he does not even realise when he lies. But lie he does, frequently, and it is fasciniating that he should promote such a thread and then state that he doesn't care what the answer is. :D It is there, at that precise point, Larson, that we 'Gotcha!'

You are welcome to point out where I lie. Prove it. Don't just claim it.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Why do people lie?

Because they can?
Because it's normal human behaviour.

Which raises the obvious question- "Why is it normal human behaviour?"

To which my answer would be, "Because, on average, given that human society is extremely complex, persisting in blatant lies works to the advantage of the liar."

Which, I guess, makes it our fault, for letting it work as a tactic.

My sister was quite the hedonist and lied just so she wouldn't have to feel bad about her rash decisions. Denial and all that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suezoled
My sister was quite the hedonist and lied just so she wouldn't have to feel bad about her rash decisions. Denial and all that.

If she really was a hedonist, she would not need to lie to avoid feeling bad about her decisions.

Hmm....?

[Soapy Sam]

Originally posted by Suezoled -
"My sister was quite the hedonist ..."

"was" Suez? May I ask why past tense?

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by De'Ville's Advocaat
Larson is quite possibly a patholigical liar. It is even entirely possible that he does not even realise when he lies. But lie he does, frequently, and it is fasciniating that he should promote such a thread and then state that he doesn't care what the answer is. :D It is there, at that precise point, Larson, that we 'Gotcha!'

Dr. Christopher Patrick has an interesting theory of 'partial psychopathy' which I have always thought pertinent to those who '...would lie on credit, when they could tell the truth for free'.

And I nominate Claus as the poster child for any fundraising to find a cure.
:p

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
May I remind you that the article is about claims? When I refer to my own article, how can I possibly misunderstand it? How can I not mean "claims"?

You really are quite dense. Did you actually read what I wrote? Do you actually think that because a thread starts off about that, every single post from that point forward is about that? Tell me you are not that thick.

By the way, over on the SDMB I have got thoroughly pissed off with Peter and I can now confirm a change in my opinion. He is a flat out deliberate liar.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by princhester
By the way, over on the SDMB I have got thoroughly pissed off with Peter and I can now confirm a change in my opinion. He is a flat out deliberate liar.

I didn't see that, what is he doing?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by princhester
You really are quite dense. Did you actually read what I wrote? Do you actually think that because a thread starts off about that, every single post from that point forward is about that? Tell me you are not that thick.

I hope I am not. But because somebody else talks about other things than claims, does that mean that I do, too?

Try to read what I wrote.

Originally posted by princhester
By the way, over on the SDMB I have got thoroughly pissed off with Peter and I can now confirm a change in my opinion. He is a flat out deliberate liar.

I am not going to say "I told you so"...

[The Don]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I am not going to say "I told you so"...
You big fibber, in effect that's just what you've done.

[IXP]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Atlas,

Shouldn't these short-term beneficiaries of deceit die out? Become "extinct"? If there is any truth to evolution, they should die out within a few generations?

Evolution is not just about surviving, it is about reproducing. Without exception, every "lady killer" I have known is an accomplished liar. And all the mem who meet him know it immediately.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by IXP
Evolution is not just about surviving, it is about reproducing. Without exception, every "lady killer" I have known is an accomplished liar. And all the mem who meet him know it immediately. This made me think of one aspect of this discussion I don't know if we've made explicit yet.

We love being lied to.

Movies, stories, books of fiction and the theater are all about the suspension of disbelief.

The women who meets up with IXP's "lady killer" often knows the lies she's being told for what they are but likes the "bad boy" charm more than the nerd who brings flowers and can't speak.

And I return to the fellow I mentioned earlier. Who doesn't like a barroom exchange with a Falstaff whose fish story is completely unbelievable but worth a beer to hear.

[princhester]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I hope I am not. But because somebody else talks about other things than claims, does that mean that I do, too?

This is just nonsense. If someone asks you a question about A but you answer concerning B because that is what a thread is about, confusion will reign.

Your basic sense of logic is missing.

[De'Ville's Advocaat]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You are welcome to point out where I lie. Prove it. Don't just claim it.

Since you have just admitted lying by asking me to point out where you do so, then there is no need. However, if you are prepared to establish what you will accept as evidence, I will be glad to provide some more.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by De'Ville's Advocaat
Since you have just admitted lying by asking me to point out where you do so, then there is no need.
he hasn't admitted anything. He's challenging you to point to one lie-just one-that he has made; i.e., he's saying he hasn't told a single lie, and when asked to indicate concrete evidence of where he lied, you will fail to do so.
Show me the money, in other words.

[Soapy Sam]

QUOTE-"This is just nonsense. If someone asks you a question about A but you answer concerning B because that is what a thread is about, confusion will reign.

Your basic sense of logic is missing."

Warning- possible thread derail.
Linear threads can be confusing. Any change of subject. (Including this one), confuses the issue more.
Perhaps if we make a major change of direction, we might flag it -for example with a coloured warning? People replying to that point might reply in the same colour.

[imagineNoReligion]

money

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by De'Ville's Advocaat
Larson is quite possibly a patholigical liar. It is even entirely possible that he does not even realise when he lies. But lie he does, frequently, and it is fasciniating that he should promote such a thread and then state that he doesn't care what the answer is. :D It is there, at that precise point, Larson, that we 'Gotcha!'

Boy, you'd think that this De'Ville's Advocaat person (who is a relatively new member) has some sort of history with Claus.
Hmmm, I wonder if he could be a sock puppet for a recently banned member.
Hmmmmmm.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by De'Ville's Advocaat
Since you have just admitted lying by asking me to point out where you do so, then there is no need.

Excuse me? How can asking for evidence be proof of guilt? What kind of insane logic is that? It reminds me of a medieval witch hunt, where a confession is taken as a confession and a denial is also taken as a confession.

You really think people will fall for that?

Originally posted by De'Ville's Advocaat
However, if you are prepared to establish what you will accept as evidence, I will be glad to provide some more.

Show me a lie. Just one.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Boy, you'd think that this De'Ville's Advocaat person (who is a relatively new member) has some sort of history with Claus.
Hmmm, I wonder if he could be a sock puppet for a recently banned member.
Hmmmmmm.

Indeed.

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Indeed.

Gee, that's never happened before! (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B812846.73B6%40yahoo.com&output=gplain)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Gee, that's never happened before! (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3B812846.73B6%40yahoo.com&output=gplain)

That's only a part of the list.

[Dr Adequate]

I don't know whether he's Lucianarchy yet, but he's certainly the halfwit Morris's psychic twin.
Originally posted by De'Ville's Advocaat
Since you have just admitted lying by asking me to point out where you do so, then there is no need.
Originally posted by Peter Morris (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45617&perpage=40&pagenumber=4)
But what of the original comment, which YOUI posted "When we say we are "skeptical", we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. " So, what is the evidence that you are willing to see? After all, you quoted this, so, you must believe that evidence exists.
All crackpots are more or less the same. Ego, ignorance, stupidity and dishonesty seems to be the basic formula. The particular crackpot beliefs vary, but deep down they're all the same. Is this Lucianarchy, or someone equally dumb? Who can say?

[CFLarsen]

The advocat has been disbarred.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The advocat has been disbarred.
For Lucianarchism, or for some other reason? We have a right to know.

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
This begs the question: What good can lying do you in a society where people know you? I cannot see any long-term benefits, if everybody knows you are a liar.
...
Cue to Shermer's book "The Science of Good and Evil". I haven't read it, but I would like to hear if there is anything in it that could explain this.
and later:
Shouldn't these short-term beneficiaries of deceit die out? Become "extinct"? If there is any truth to evolution, they should die out within a few generations? I'd strongly recomend Mat Riddly's The Origin of Virtue on this topic -- both in regards to it's discussion of the evolutionary advantages / disadvantages of deception, and to it's coverage of the state and evolution of the debate itself.

Plus it's a great read. Riddly's a talented author.

The only real criticism I'd have is that it seems to be so heavily mired in the debate against cynical/naive interpretation of the Selfish Gene Theory and the Hobbesian aproach to political & ecconomic studies that it can get a bit tiresome at points if one doesn't much care. ;)
(It's rather analogous to a reading book on evolution that spends a third of it's time countering creationist arguments : dreary if one doesn't consider the debate valid in the first place.)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
I'd strongly recomend Mat Riddly's The Origin of Virtue on this topic -- both in regards to it's discussion of the evolutionary advantages / disadvantages of deception, and to it's coverage of the state and evolution of the debate itself.

Plus it's a great read. Riddly's a talented author.

The only real criticism I'd have is that it seems to be so heavily mired in the debate against cynical/naive interpretation of the Selfish Gene Theory and the Hobbesian aproach to political & ecconomic studies that it can get a bit tiresome at points if one doesn't much care. ;)
(It's rather analogous to a reading book on evolution that spends a third of it's time countering creationist arguments : dreary if one doesn't consider the debate valid in the first place.)
And, tell me, Vim, is there an evolutionary advantage to spelling "its" correctly? ;) :D

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
And, tell me, Vim, is there an evolutionary advantage to spelling "its" correctly? ;) :D Kimpatsu --> :hit:

;) :p

This is why I hate the web. No time to proofread properly.

And touche. :)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
And touche. :)
Shouldn't that be "touché"? :p :D

[Vim Razz]

Arrrrrrgg! Yeah? Well, ummm...

Gamera eats your karate guys.

I win this debate by superior avatar. :D

(at least as long as your karate kids dont realize that this is just a picture of a miniature figurine and not, in fact, GAMERA: GUARDIAN OF THE UNIVERSE. Shhhhh!!)

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
Arrrrrrgg! Yeah? Well, ummm...
Gamera eats your karate guys.
I win this debate by superior avatar. :D

But I've never trained in karate in my life? :confused:
I'm a Shorinji Kenshi. Check out the official website, (http://wsko.econ-net.or.jp/) or the British Federation website, (http://www.bskf.org/) to get you started.
And your avatar is not superior. Even Gamera would succumb to ryote yori nuki. So there. :p

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by number9
Oh, and there are many definitions for "is", in case anyone is wondering. Every time anyone digs at Bubba for that one, I know they're not thinking.
The alleged "definition of 'is'" quote --- I thought that was an urban myth. I've certainly never seen it on TV, whereas I've seen "I did not have sex with that woman" a zillion times. So did he actually say it, or is it like "Crisis, what crisis?" (made up quote which, supposedly, brought down a British PM back in the 60s). Does anyone know?

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
The alleged "definition of 'is'" quote --- I thought that was an urban myth. I've certainly never seen it on TV, whereas I've seen "I did not have sex with that woman" a zillion times. So did he actually say it, or is it like "Crisis, what crisis?" (made up quote which, supposedly, brought down a British PM back in the 60s). Does anyone know? Yup.
QUESTION: "Your—that statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?"

CLINTON: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word is means. If is means 'is, and never has been', that's one thing. If it means, 'there is none', that was a completely true statement."--from the Starr Report, cited from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_depends_what_the_definition_of_is_is...)

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
And your avatar is not superior. Even Gamera would succumb to ryote yori nuki. So there. :p Preposterous. Boys in skirts could never defeat the great Lord Gamera.

Why lie when we know that you're lying, Kimpatsu? What do you hope to accomplish by this? ;) :p

[gnome]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
Yup.
--from the Starr Report, cited from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_depends_what_the_definition_of_is_is...)

An unfortunate occasion on which he could have spoken more clearly. A better response would have been "It depends what you mean by the question. Now, or ever in the past?"

To be honest, an even better response would have been to say, "It's between my wife and I and none of your business. I'm not discussing it."

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
Preposterous. Boys in skirts could never defeat the great Lord Gamera.
They could if they were True Scotsmen.

Thanks for the link.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
The alleged "definition of 'is'" quote --- I thought that was an urban myth. I've certainly never seen it on TV, whereas I've seen "I did not have sex with that woman" a zillion times. So did he actually say it, or is it like "Crisis, what crisis?" (made up quote which, supposedly, brought down a British PM back in the 60s). Does anyone know?
"Crisis? What crisis?" was allegedly spoken by Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan in 1978, as he stepped off a plane, all fit and tanned, from a holiday in the Carribbean, where he had gone during the "winter of discontent", which was when everyone went on strike, the refuse wasn't collected, and the dead didn't get buried. In reality, it appears the quote was attributed to him by the Sun, the Murdoch tabloid that makes up news and behaves like a sex-starved comic book.
HTH.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
Preposterous. Boys in skirts could never defeat the great Lord Gamera.
Tell that to the Black Watch.
Originally posted by Vim Razz
Why lie when we know that you're lying, Kimpatsu? What do you hope to accomplish by this? ;) :p
Why do you lie so preposterously? We Shorinji Kenshi are the Jedi Knights of JREF; your time is limited, Lord Voldemort.

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by gnome
An unfortunate occasion on which he could have spoken more clearly. A better response would have been "It depends what you mean by the question. Now, or ever in the past?" Very true, though of course it's also much easier to say that sort of thing in hindsight then to come up with it under the gun without much time to think. It may have been a silly and awkward defense, but he did manage to stay on his feet.

I'd never been particularly fond of Clinton, but I do have to give him credit for his ability to wiggle and dodge under pressure. I would have been crushed by a fraction of the controversy.
To be honest, an even better response would have been to say, "It's between my wife and I and none of your business. I'm not discussing it." "Better" depends on what it is you're trying to accomplish. Personaly, I'm still convinced that he was taking advantage of the public's distracted fixation and milking the issue for enough time to keep people's attention off of NAFTA, which passed rather quietly while John Q. was yammering exitedly about cigars, dresses, and the meaning of "is".

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate:
They could if they were True Scotsmen.

by Kimpatsu:
Tell that to the Black Watch. The Scots are indead a might race that make common men shudder in our boots, but your comparing apple and oranges here. Or rather: apples and Ancient Giant Radioactive Turtle-God-Monsters With Spinning Rocket-Powered Flight Mode! It just doesn't work that way. God-Turtles have Rocket-Power; boys in skirts have knobbly knees.Dr Adequate:
Thanks for the link. Chears. Kimpatsu:
Why do you lie so preposterously? Ha! What is this? The "I'm-rubber-you're-glue-whatever-you-say-bounces-off-me-and-goes-back-on-you" defense? Weak. At the very least you could have picked your own adverb! :zzw:

You are defeated, Kimpatsu! Admit it and bow out gracefuly before you get yourself disconjointed. :o :D We Shorinji Kenshi are the Jedi Knights of JREF; your time is limited, Lord Voldemort.(How many times do I have to tell you NOT TO CALL ME THAT NAME IN PUBLIC? The people dont understand my Vision! My Greatness! They must not learn who I really am!) :mad:

Jedi? Sounds like a claim for the Million Dollar Challenge! What proof do you have?

Listen. Do you hear that sound? It's nothing. Your Shorinji Kenshi are nothing but kilted con-men preying on the fears and superstitions of the masses. :p

[CFLarsen]

This thread has taken a turn for the weirder.

Or, as they say in New York, "sophisticated".

[Dr Adequate]

Well, to get back to the OP, then:

What is the bleedin' use of lying like this? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49050) About, ultimately, the contents of his posts on a thread I'd linked to. What's the use? It just makes him look like a stupid liar. Look like?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
The Scots are indead a might race that make common men shudder in our boots, but your comparing apple and oranges here. Or rather: apples and Ancient Giant Radioactive Turtle-God-Monsters With Spinning Rocket-Powered Flight Mode! It just doesn't work that way. God-Turtles have Rocket-Power; boys in skirts have knobbly knees.Chears. Ha! What is this? The "I'm-rubber-you're-glue-whatever-you-say-bounces-off-me-and-goes-back-on-you" defense? Weak. At the very least you could have picked your own adverb!
And you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're", either. Just as you don't know the differenec between "its" and "it's". Guess Ropcket Boys can't spell...
And which adverb might you mean?
Originally posted by Vim Razz
You are defeated, Kimpatsu! Admit it and bow out gracefuly before you get yourself disconjointed. :o :D (How many times do I have to tell you NOT TO CALL ME THAT NAME IN PUBLIC? The people dont understand my Vision! My Greatness! They must not learn who I really am!) :mad:
I never lose, VOLDEMORT, VOLDEMORT, VOLDEMORT!
Originally posted by Vim Razz
Jedi? Sounds like a claim for the Million Dollar Challenge! What proof do you have?
Why is being a Shornji Kenshi a $1 million claim? (Although I wouldn't mind having $1 million.)
Originally posted by Vim Razz
Listen. Do you hear that sound? It's nothing. Your Shorinji Kenshi are nothing but kilted con-men preying on the fears and superstitions of the masses. :p
Shorinji Kenshi don't wear kilts; we wear hoi. And I challenge you to come here and say that, Rocket Boy (Voldemort).

[Peter Morris]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, yes, they know:

Peter Morris: Lies when he claims I have said that I have evidence that the $1 million is "cursed".


And yet that is exactly what you said, Larsen. Denying that you said what you said makes you a liar. You were extremely stupid to make the claim in the first place. Once you said it, denying your words is even dumber.

[Ashles]

687 posts about Randi and Larsen.

Wow.

Even 1inChrist had more variety than Peter Morris.

Peter, Larsen never claimed the money was cursed. There are pencil sharpenings on my desk which are more aware of this than you. Nobody in the entire world thinks he ever made this claim, not even you. You are arguing for the sake of arguing and it is getting quite embarassing.
Your quotes on the subject demonstrate that he never claimed this, his posting history emphasises this, and the fact that he is the editor of the Skeptic Report pretty much makes this beyond doubt an idiotic claim by you.

Why do you continue to make this moronic claim like a 6-year old who doesn't want to go to bed?

On the entire internet your repeated claims about this 'curse' that you allege Larsen claimed are, in my opinion, the stupidest things I have ever read.

Please stop acting like a child.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And yet that is exactly what you said, Larsen. Denying that you said what you said makes you a liar. You were extremely stupid to make the claim in the first place. Once you said it, denying your words is even dumber.
Peter Morris, please don't derail this thread (as derailed as it already is) for your sad and sorry personal feud. If you want to beat that dead horse some more, revive the old one. *sheesh*

Originally posted by Ashles
Please stop acting like a child.
Yes, please. I'm getting embarrassed for you.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Peter Morris
And yet that is exactly what you said, Larsen.
No, it bloody well isn't! Peter, show us with a direct quote where Larsen claimed the money was cursed. Please, just cut and paste the quote. Please, please, PLEASE!
I'm waiting...

[Vim Razz]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
And you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're", either. Just as you don't know the differenec between "its" and "it's". As a mater of fact: no, I don't know the "diferenec." I do know, however, that your need to fall back on petty nitpicking shows that you're out of ammunition.

Give up, KP. You're not even firing blanks anymore -- you're just pointing the gun and making noises hoping that I wont know the difference. No such luck. :D And which adverb might you mean? All that grammatical tough-talk and you're having trouble picking the adverb out of a simple interogative sentence? Or is the shame such that you'd rather "conveniently" forget about the episode? :p Why is being a Shornji Kenshi a $1 million claim? It depends upon what the meaning of the word is means. ;) In this case, "is" means Jedi. Your words, kenshi, not mine. Is this that convenient memory of yours at work again?Shorinji Kenshi don't wear kilts; we wear hoi. And I challenge you to come here and say that, Rocket Boy. A skirt by any other name is looks twice as silly. And be careful what you ask for, battosai. It just so happens that I'll be in Tokyo next April or June. :p

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
As a mater of fact: no, I don't know the "diferenec." I do know, however, that your need to fall back on petty nitpicking shows that you're out of ammunition.
I was dumbing down the spelling to your level. But the difference between "your" and "you're" is far from petty.
Originally posted by Vim Razz
Give up, KP. You're not even firing blanks anymore -- you're just pointing the gun and making noises hoping that I wont know the difference. No such luck. :D All that grammatical tough-talk and you're having trouble picking the adverb out of a simple interogative sentence? Or is the shame such that you'd rather "conveniently" forget about the episode?
My point is that you seem to be harping on about an adverb, which is totally irrelevant.
Originally posted by Vim Razz
It depends upon what the meaning of the word is means.
Thank you, Clinton.
Originally posted by Vim Razz
;) In this case, "is" means Jedi. Your words, kenshi, not mine.
You have failed to understand a simple English Sentence. I said that I am a Shorinji Kenshi, NOT a Jedi Knight, but that we were LIKE the Jedi in some respects.
Originally posted by Vim Razz
Is this that convenient memory of yours at work again? A skirt by any other name is looks twice as silly.
There is nothing silly about a hoi. What is silly is you wearing a suit, and thinking it makes you look like a gentleman.
Originally posted by Vim Razz
And be careful what you ask for, battosai. It just so happens that I'll be in Tokyo next April or June.
Good. We can do randori, and then I can ship you home in a box, Darth.

[CFLarsen]

Still no evidence from Peter Morris...

[Dr Adequate]

Ashles, Nex, Larsen: try making your sig look a bit more like mine. After enough people have commented on his mental problems, perhaps he'll begin to come to terms with it, and seek help. I don't see what else to do with him. He's so twisted, you can't talk sense to him any more, if you ever could. But universal contempt might just reach him.

[Ashles]

Clarice Starling didn't want Hannibal Lecter in her head and, similarly, I don't want Peter Morris in my sig.

If you get too near to his name you get hit by all the spite and bitter vitriol that flies from his posts.
And I'm wearing a clean shirt.

Peter is beyond help. If he can't realise his own problems there is little we can do.:(

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Ashles
687 posts about Randi and Larsen.

Wow.
Welcome to the world of the monomaniac.

No, Peter will probably never change. I'd hope that realising that he's the object of universal disgust might make him go away. But he's a bit like a carny geek. So long as the geek can poison his body with alcohol, he's happy to eat live toads and roll about in his own filth for a paying crowd in exchange: so long as Peter can poison his mind with bile, he doesn't seem to care how how nauseating and ridiculous we find his own very special brand of self-abasement.

[kookbreaker]

I certainly am not going to have anything from Peter Morris in my .sig. I like to save that for things I find clever or amusing. Having a PM quote in my .sig is like walking around with toilet paper sticking to your shoe.

I think he feeds on the Universal contempt, especially since he can dismiss all of us as "Randi-fans" in an effort to make himself feel better. Doesn't explain the pounding he gets at SDMB.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for being responsible for Peter's appearance at this forum.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Ashles, Nex, Larsen: try making your sig look a bit more like mine. After enough people have commented on his mental problems, perhaps he'll begin to come to terms with it, and seek help. I don't see what else to do with him. He's so twisted, you can't talk sense to him any more, if you ever could. But universal contempt might just reach him.

But I like my sig line. It's simple... elegant... boring. :D

I say we hold a contest poll, see if he wins for Biggest JREF Liar of All Time. I figure the competition between him and 1inC would be interesting. We could even make bets.

[Dragon]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
I certainly am not going to have anything from Peter Morris in my .sig. I like to save that for things I find clever or amusing. Having a PM quote in my .sig is like walking around with toilet paper sticking to your shoe.

I think he feeds on the Universal contempt, especially since he can dismiss all of us as "Randi-fans" in an effort to make himself feel better. Doesn't explain the pounding he gets at SDMB.

I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for being responsible for Peter's appearance at this forum.
No apology needed, I'm sure his obsession would have brought him here anyway, like a moth to a flame.
Here's an example from over a year ago where Morris ties himself in knots over Randi, Geller, Hawking, Sister Kenny and re-defining the meaning of the word 'paranormal' (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27015&perpage=40&highlight=record%20grooves&pagenumber=5) - oh and don't even mention the Lintgen guy who can 'read' vinyl records.
:rolleyes:

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Dragon
No apology needed, I'm sure his obsession would have brought him here anyway, like a moth to a flame.
Here's an example from over a year ago where Morris ties himself in knots over Randi, Geller, Hawking, Sister Kenny and re-defining the meaning of the word 'paranormal' (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27015&perpage=40&highlight=record%20grooves&pagenumber=5) - oh and don't even mention the Lintgen guy who can 'read' vinyl records.
:rolleyes:

Oh yeah, the "Where's the Harm" thread. I think he put up everything but the kitchen sink. Even tried to pull out sTARBABY, IIRC. He was tyring the shotgun approach at that point. Mostly ended up shooting strawmen. Especially the one where he claimed we all rejected the SRI testing of Geller becuase Randi said so!

:roll:

Is it a coincidence that Peter has come back on a (American) Holiday? It always seems as if his reemerging coincindes with some slow time for the board. (Saturdays, etc.)

[Vim Razz]

Kimpatsu misses the forest for the trees:
you seem to be harping on about an adverb, which is totally irrelevant.

Vim Razz told it like it is:
Preposterous ... Why lie when we know that you're lying?

to which Kimpatsu responded with the startlingly creative:
Why do you lie so preposterously?

Kimpatsu forgets what this faux-debate was about:
I said that I am a Shorinji Kenshi, NOT a Jedi Knight.

namely his claim that:
Even Gamera would succumb to ryote yori nuki.

which, to Vim, implies supernatural power. After all, it requires more then just muscle to take down imortal monsters -- even imaginary ones. When challenged in this regard, Kimpastu reinforced the implication by equating kempo power to Jedi power:
We Shorinji Kenshi are the Jedi Knights of JREF

Vim Razz remains unconvinced. Kimpatsu has offered nothing futher to the debate but artlessly gratuitous ad hominum attacks. Vim has has run out of patience for such silliness.

Gamera wins.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Vim Razz
...which, to Vim, implies supernatural power. After all, it requires more then just muscle to take down imortal monsters
No strength is required at all to perform Shorinji Kempo techniques; that's why they're called techniques. Even Gamera has a centre of gravity.
Originally posted by Vim Razz
Vim Razz remains unconvinced.
Which merely speaks to your lack of imaginative power.
:p :D