How To Approach A Thai If You Think They Are Lying?

[fruittbatt]

Truth is pretty simple.

could you explain it to us, then?

[jamman]

Ah, but what is the essential YOU, if all we have is words to represent ourselves, as you claim? (We are all trapped in our maze of discourse).

I do not see that idealised Hollywood-code fantasy movie representations of "heroes" bear a lot of resemblance to the reality of our daily lives. Many of the western adult-aged people I have met are extremely dependent on others' good opinions. I grant you that many may not be "adult" in the psychological sense of the word.

I don't claim that all we have is our words to represent ourself. Thais believe this, I do not. I believe that our actions have an objective reality. We can lie, but that doesn't make the words into any sort of truth. The essential ME that I'd like to be admired is nothing more than my body and actions and ideas.

And we are not trapped in a maze of discourse. Language is a tool that we use. We are not the tool. I am not my mental interpretation. That is the whole point of meditation - to dis-identify with thoughts, and embody our being more fully.

Yes, a great many adult aged westerners are still at a teen level of sense of self. The percentage is different in different cultures, and is extremely high in Thailand.

By saying that we are trapped in a maze of discourse, I meant that we - all of us human beings - Thai, falang, whoever, represent ourselves through language(s). In this forum language is our only tool for representing ourselves and our ideas (apart from the avatar).

I do not understand how it is possible for you to generalise about "Thais" as largely psychologically immature or as all sharing the belief that words are all we have to represent ourselves. How do you know? What is your objective basis for making such statements?

I think I did understand that you meant to say that it is the human condition to be trapped within our linquistic mental representations. I suggest that we are not necessarily so trapped.

I can generalize about Thailand having a higher percentage of immature adults based on my experiences and the experiences that I hear others talk about it. My experiences are objective experiences, based upon the senses. If I see a car crash, the event is not a subjective anecdote up and until a clinical study says otherwise. Careful examination of the stories of many other people has led me to see patterns. If the only evidence you can take to be objective is a clinically controlled double blind experiment, then you must therefore discount most of all reality.

[Valjean]

I think there are different kinds of lying. I might think of them this way

The Innocent Lie

This is telling someone they look fine when they don’t. There are lots of reasons why the “white lie” is a social lubricant and softens situations where the truth does no good and a lie does no harm. I for one would not want to live with 100% brutal honest in every interaction.

The Situational Lie

We all get into awkward situations where the truth is difficult to speak. Let’s say you’re in a meeting with a number of people including your boss and his/her boss. Let’s say that top boss asks a question that is very awkward given the work dynamics or your job security. You would love to tell the truth but it’s just not safe. Now maybe you have a strategy to tell the truth on another day or another way – backchannel it up or something. Or wait to get a more solid set of non-emotional facts together. In any complex work environment there is some of this. You don’t like it but telling the truth is not perceived as the safe or wise thing to do. If we’re adroit communicators we learn to thread the needle in some middle gray non-truth way but not everyone can do that. And some questions maybe are in the middle of this and the Innocent Lie – “are you gay?” could be a question in some situations where you need to protect yourself from what is an unfair reaction to an honest answer.

The Dishonest Lie

This is the lie intended to deceive from a person who cannot be trusted. The person only cares about their own ends. This person should be avoided and I don’t think really worth trying to get at the truth. What’s the point? You cannot and should not trust them.

Accept the Innocent Lie but understand the cultural norms around this can vary but no harm is intended and rarely caused. “Yes you really do look wonderful!!”

The Situational Lie is for me the most complex here and in my work here. Am I setting up situations where it’s hard to be honest to me? Am I asking what I think are straight forward questions when for that person I’m asking are very difficult to answer truthfully? Have I created an environment where it is safe to tell the truth? Am giving people the space to answer in their own way – a way that might be less direct than my own? That might take a little deciphering to get to the essential truth. (and maybe they are assuming I am correctly deciphering the truth when I may just see a falsehood – missing the point they are making). This is the hard work of understanding, communicating and listening across cultures.

Get away from the dishonest people who. There is nothing there. Protect yourself.

It is not easy to tell the difference always. Sometime you have to know someone awhile to sort it out.

[GuestHouse]

I think the OP is asking the wrong question.

Does the lie matter to you?

If yes get rid of the person who is lying to you.

If no, ignore it.

[Jeffery Stanthorpe]

It reminds me of an incident I had last year,

Me and ex gf were looking at some condo units and the saleslady was talking about how good the unitys were ...

i said to her "your nose is growing, your nose is growing ... " over and over ..

she thought i was crazy !!

[fruittbatt]

I think I did understand that you meant to say that it is the human condition to be trapped within our linquistic mental representations. I suggest that we are not necessarily so trapped.

I can generalize about Thailand having a higher percentage of immature adults based on my experiences and the experiences that I hear others talk about it. My experiences are objective experiences, based upon the senses. If I see a car crash, the event is not a subjective anecdote up and until a clinical study says otherwise. Careful examination of the stories of many other people has led me to see patterns. If the only evidence you can take to be objective is a clinically controlled double blind experiment, then you must therefore discount most of all reality.

I claim that "reality" is a construction, largely based upon our linguistic representation of sensory experiences, which are, in turn, heavily inflected by the cultural myths and beliefs (ie stories and representations...many powerful and official) which we carry around.

"Objective" to me means something having a reality, an independent authority and existence beyond sensory experience and language. What then can be said to be objective?

Likewise, I see clinical reports or any scientific information as being just another story to explain events. The most powerful hypothesis is always provisional and likely to be overturned. Statements like "the earth is round" are simply one way of describing shape. This description is contestable and subject to change.

Having said all this heavy stuff, there remains the question about deliberate intent to deceive in order to save one's face or bacon. I don't think it fair to judge most Thais as "immature" or "face-savers" based on your own empirically small sample and the stories of others who may be carrying prejudicial attitudes....which would account for the "patterns" you are seeing here. It could also be that your own perceptions are tinged with a cultural bias, and that you are seeing events through a very loaded telescope....something I believe we all do.

[h90]

My partner and I ran into a professional Thai acquaintance the other day, who proceeded to tell us bald-faced lies to our surprised, smiling faces. We didn't press the point, and we parted company as if no lies had been told. You cannot proceed to 'the truth' which doesn't exist, and you can't accuse them of 'lies' they haven't told. Proceed as if the conversation never took place, as if you have no information on which to extend the relationship.

Here, far more than 'back home' the truth does not matter, or is not the same. Mai bpen rai. But in business dealings, caveat emptor.

Well my wife (south thailand/half chinese) is usually shouting "go hok" what means something like "fake" in my opinion, than something with "sad" what should mean something like "animal" comes and than the longer part that such people are the reason that thailand is going down/the culture/skills/society.........

Imagine how many friends we have.....

[OlRedEyes]

because we are all chicken <deleted> to some extent, and dependent on others' good opinion of us.

seeing events through a very loaded telescope....something I believe we all do.

I don't think it fair to judge most Thais as "immature" or "face-savers" based on your own empirically small sample and the stories of others who may be carrying prejudicial attitudes....which would account for the "patterns" you are seeing here. It could also be that your own perceptions are tinged with a cultural bias,

Your first two statements are sweeping generalisations, which I for one know is patently untrue. The third admonishes a poster for doing the same thing you just did, twice. Except he never said 'all'.

Being able to step outside of your own bias, cultural or otherwise, is quite possible, once you realise the damage you can do to yourself by clouding your judgement with these biases. And the gain in effectiveness and opportunity that opens up once you have cultivated the ability to do so.

But as always, obfuscation - sorry for the repeated use of the word but it does the best job of describing what I mean - will continue until reason retreats into silence, much like a Fox 'discussion' where the one thats shouts the loudest and longest believes they win the argument.

I retire to the Last word, Hot bum, I have nothing to say threads.

[Jeffery Stanthorpe]

My partner and I ran into a professional Thai acquaintance the other day, who proceeded to tell us bald-faced lies to our surprised, smiling faces. We didn't press the point, and we parted company as if no lies had been told. You cannot proceed to 'the truth' which doesn't exist, and you can't accuse them of 'lies' they haven't told. Proceed as if the conversation never took place, as if you have no information on which to extend the relationship.

Here, far more than 'back home' the truth does not matter, or is not the same. Mai bpen rai. But in business dealings, caveat emptor.

Well my wife (south thailand/half chinese) is usually shouting "go hok" what means something like "fake" in my opinion, than something with "sad" what should mean something like "animal" comes and than the longer part that such people are the reason that thailand is going down/the culture/skills/society.........

Imagine how many friends we have.....

i hear you man, my ex gf used to shout "go hok, e sat " or " go hok a here farang" when i would fall into the apartment after a night out with my buddies, crazy times not sure what she was trying to say

[soundman]

My partner and I ran into a professional Thai acquaintance the other day, who proceeded to tell us bald-faced lies to our surprised, smiling faces. We didn't press the point, and we parted company as if no lies had been told. You cannot proceed to 'the truth' which doesn't exist, and you can't accuse them of 'lies' they haven't told. Proceed as if the conversation never took place, as if you have no information on which to extend the relationship.

Here, far more than 'back home' the truth does not matter, or is not the same. Mai bpen rai. But in business dealings, caveat emptor.

Well my wife (south thailand/half chinese) is usually shouting "go hok" what means something like "fake" in my opinion, than something with "sad" what should mean something like "animal" comes and than the longer part that such people are the reason that thailand is going down/the culture/skills/society.........

Imagine how many friends we have.....

i hear you man, my ex gf used to shout "go hok, e sat " or " go hok a here farang" when i would fall into the apartment after a night out with my buddies, crazy times not sure what she was trying to say

go hok ai sut - liar animal - you f*#king liar

go hok ai heah farang - liar (no word in english) foreigner - you pr*ck (or I can't even print the worse version here) foreigner

hope this clears up the thai slang for you,

Soundman.

[lannarebirth]

I think I did understand that you meant to say that it is the human condition to be trapped within our linquistic mental representations. I suggest that we are not necessarily so trapped.

I can generalize about Thailand having a higher percentage of immature adults based on my experiences and the experiences that I hear others talk about it. My experiences are objective experiences, based upon the senses. If I see a car crash, the event is not a subjective anecdote up and until a clinical study says otherwise. Careful examination of the stories of many other people has led me to see patterns. If the only evidence you can take to be objective is a clinically controlled double blind experiment, then you must therefore discount most of all reality.

I claim that "reality" is a construction, largely based upon our linguistic representation of sensory experiences, which are, in turn, heavily inflected by the cultural myths and beliefs (ie stories and representations...many powerful and official) which we carry around.

"Objective" to me means something having a reality, an independent authority and existence beyond sensory experience and language. What then can be said to be objective?

Likewise, I see clinical reports or any scientific information as being just another story to explain events. The most powerful hypothesis is always provisional and likely to be overturned. Statements like "the earth is round" are simply one way of describing shape. This description is contestable and subject to change.

Having said all this heavy stuff, there remains the question about deliberate intent to deceive in order to save one's face or bacon. I don't think it fair to judge most Thais as "immature" or "face-savers" based on your own empirically small sample and the stories of others who may be carrying prejudicial attitudes....which would account for the "patterns" you are seeing here. It could also be that your own perceptions are tinged with a cultural bias, and that you are seeing events through a very loaded telescope....something I believe we all do.

This is a good example of why I would never hire anyone with an education earned online.

Edited February 19, 2007 by lannarebirth

[qwertz]

Truth is pretty simple.

And even simpler to omit

[fruittbatt]

Snide retort, Lannarebirth! My education has not been "earned online" despite the fact that I am doing a Masters Degree by distance education. I would at least have expected you to address the issues raised rather than adopting a supercilious attitude while ignoring the substance of the discussion.

Edited February 19, 2007 by fruittbatt

[luckyluke]

According to the Jataka (Buddhist literature) : " In certain cases a bodhisattva may kill,commit adultery,or take drugs,but he may not lie,intentional lying contradicts reality."

[fruittbatt]

because we are all chicken <deleted> to some extent, and dependent on others' good opinion of us.

seeing events through a very loaded telescope....something I believe we all do.

I don't think it fair to judge most Thais as "immature" or "face-savers" based on your own empirically small sample and the stories of others who may be carrying prejudicial attitudes....which would account for the "patterns" you are seeing here. It could also be that your own perceptions are tinged with a cultural bias,

Your first two statements are sweeping generalisations, which I for one know is patently untrue. The third admonishes a poster for doing the same thing you just did, twice. Except he never said 'all'.

Being able to step outside of your own bias, cultural or otherwise, is quite possible, once you realise the damage you can do to yourself by clouding your judgement with these biases. And the gain in effectiveness and opportunity that opens up once you have cultivated the ability to do so.

But as always, obfuscation - sorry for the repeated use of the word but it does the best job of describing what I mean - will continue until reason retreats into silence, much like a Fox 'discussion' where the one thats shouts the loudest and longest believes they win the argument.

I retire to the Last word, Hot bum, I have nothing to say threads.

well, that let you off the hook of backing your "truth" claims, didn't it?

To answer your points: yes, I did generalise in the statement that we "all" depend on to some extent on the good opinions of others. Guilty as charged.

In the second statement I made it very clear that this was my opinion, not a general statement, by using the words "I believe". Ditto in the suggestions to Jamman, I did not "admonish him" so much as suggest that he may have been generalising from insufficient evidence, as indeed i did myself. You are quite correct.

I have no desire to "win" any argument. This is a discussion, and I take it seriously enough to answer anyone who I think has made a good or contestable point.

[PeaceBlondie]

Maybe I (and some others here) were raised wrong, in a Western civilization in which "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." A society where a relentless search for truth often fixes blame and causes people to lose face, or be damaged (or lose a lawsuit). Sometimes, you shouldn't tell all the truth. And what good is the truth, if you can't DO something good with it? If Sasacha burned the bacon, will blaming her make the bacon taste better? If we blame her and shame her in front of other Thais, she may start burning the bacon out of spite!

What do Thais think of farang who consistently tell the truth far more than the locals do? Do we at first appear a bit stupid, but eventually acquire a positive reputation as a non-liar, if we're careful not to speak all the truth?

[AlexLah]

I have introduced some very simple rules in my office.

1. I you forgot to do something , just tell, it is no problem.

2. If you made a mistake, just tell, no problem

3. If you try to cover up your mistakes ore things forgotten and I find out (and I will) you have a problem.

4. If you tell a lie about anything I will find out and for sure you have a problem.

If one ore two, we will find a solution and hopefully we learned something from it.

Had a meeting last week with the big shots from HQ from Holland.

One person was telling lies to us and I confronted her with that.

She lost face big time.

My Thai team now understands the value of telling the truth (I hope).

Another example:

A customer complained about our products when I could clearly prove it was an process error.

So I explained the eror they made and teached them how to avoid in the future.

No problems at all as were my team told me they could not tell the customer they were wrong.

So to the OP, if you know people tell you some lie, be open about it and tell that you do not like to be with people that lie to you.

If they still insist they tell you the truth but you can prove they lie, just stop working with /visiting them.

Alex

[lannarebirth]

Snide retort, Lannarebirth! My education has not been "earned online" despite the fact that I am doing a Masters Degree by distance education. I would at least have expected you to address the issues raised rather than adopting a supercilious attitude while ignoring the substance of the discussion.

The issue raised was how best to confront someone who is lieing to you, without causing a lose of face to the liar. I don't recall the OP asking anything where a response like this:

I claim that "reality" is a construction, largely based upon our linguistic representation of sensory experiences, which are, in turn, heavily inflected by the cultural myths and beliefs (ie stories and representations...many powerful and official) which we carry around.

"Objective" to me means something having a reality, an independent authority and existence beyond sensory experience and language. What then can be said to be objective?

Likewise, I see clinical reports or any scientific information as being just another story to explain events. The most powerful hypothesis is always provisional and likely to be overturned. Statements like "the earth is round" are simply one way of describing shape. This description is contestable and subject to change.

might have been indicated, or in the least bit helpful. It seemed like the kind of tripe one would read from someone who is being paid per word.

Personally, I have no constuctive input for the OP, because I'm not the least bit concerned if someone lieing to me loses face or not.

[jamman]

Maybe I (and some others here) were raised wrong, in a Western civilization in which "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." A society where a relentless search for truth often fixes blame and causes people to lose face, or be damaged (or lose a lawsuit). Sometimes, you shouldn't tell all the truth. And what good is the truth, if you can't DO something good with it? If Sasacha burned the bacon, will blaming her make the bacon taste better? If we blame her and shame her in front of other Thais, she may start burning the bacon out of spite!

What do Thais think of farang who consistently tell the truth far more than the locals do? Do we at first appear a bit stupid, but eventually acquire a positive reputation as a non-liar, if we're careful not to speak all the truth?

Blame is not the natural and only outcome of a desire for truth. Blame is a separate issue.

For instance, in my Kadampa Buddhist trainings, we are given the slogan "drive all blames into oneself", and are encouraged to take the blame whenever possible. This has a curious effect on ones attitude, and one eventually gets the feeling that we are all just part of the same stew, all capable of being a-holes, all capable of being loving. At the same time Buddhism offers lay people the opportunity to take lay vows, for life, or for a period of time. I once took the vow to not lie, at all, for 1 year. This was very instructive to me. It was quite a difficult habit at first. If I did catch myself in a lie, I'd have the embarrassment of having to follow up and admitting it. After you get used to it, it becomes quite easy, and you'd not want to go back. I don't see that being truthful has caused me to blame people more - the opposite, I think, as I truthfully know what a dck I am, and what dcks other people are. No need to blame people for being people - just see it as clearly as possible, love it as much as possible, avoid abuse as much as possible, and have as much fun as possible.

Edited February 19, 2007 by jamman

[HenryB]

According to the Jataka (Buddhist literature) : " In certain cases a bodhisattva may kill,commit adultery,or take drugs,but he may not lie,intentional lying contradicts reality."

Thanks for Info I guess you are not Buddhist as you read Buddhist literature. the Thais that lie are not reading Buddhist literature they just lie.

[lannarebirth]

Maybe I (and some others here) were raised wrong, in a Western civilization in which "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." A society where a relentless search for truth often fixes blame and causes people to lose face, or be damaged (or lose a lawsuit). Sometimes, you shouldn't tell all the truth. And what good is the truth, if you can't DO something good with it? If Sasacha burned the bacon, will blaming her make the bacon taste better? If we blame her and shame her in front of other Thais, she may start burning the bacon out of spite!

What do Thais think of farang who consistently tell the truth far more than the locals do? Do we at first appear a bit stupid, but eventually acquire a positive reputation as a non-liar, if we're careful not to speak all the truth?

Thai , who are predominately Buddhist, well know that lieing is wrong. "Do not lie" is one of the 5 Precepts of Buddhism. Deception and falsehoods inevitibly create a cycle of disorder and ill will. In many societies, there are those who benefit from such a condition. So it continues.

[Briggsy]

In answer to the OP

mob-handed???

[jamman]

I think I did understand that you meant to say that it is the human condition to be trapped within our linquistic mental representations. I suggest that we are not necessarily so trapped.

I can generalize about Thailand having a higher percentage of immature adults based on my experiences and the experiences that I hear others talk about it. My experiences are objective experiences, based upon the senses. If I see a car crash, the event is not a subjective anecdote up and until a clinical study says otherwise. Careful examination of the stories of many other people has led me to see patterns. If the only evidence you can take to be objective is a clinically controlled double blind experiment, then you must therefore discount most of all reality.

I claim that "reality" is a construction, largely based upon our linguistic representation of sensory experiences, which are, in turn, heavily inflected by the cultural myths and beliefs (ie stories and representations...many powerful and official) which we carry around.

"Objective" to me means something having a reality, an independent authority and existence beyond sensory experience and language. What then can be said to be objective?

Likewise, I see clinical reports or any scientific information as being just another story to explain events. The most powerful hypothesis is always provisional and likely to be overturned. Statements like "the earth is round" are simply one way of describing shape. This description is contestable and subject to change.

Having said all this heavy stuff, there remains the question about deliberate intent to deceive in order to save one's face or bacon. I don't think it fair to judge most Thais as "immature" or "face-savers" based on your own empirically small sample and the stories of others who may be carrying prejudicial attitudes....which would account for the "patterns" you are seeing here. It could also be that your own perceptions are tinged with a cultural bias, and that you are seeing events through a very loaded telescope....something I believe we all do.

I agree that subjective experience can be described entirely in subjective language, but I don't agree that all of reality is subjective. The evidence points to there also being an objective component to it, regardless that all our experiences are ultimately experienced in a subjective and intersubjective way. I don't agree that there must be a Final Ultimate Knowable Truth that we all can share for truth to be valuable and meaningful and useful. We make as much sense out of all the puzzle pieces that we can, and if there are a lot of pieces left over that don't fit in, those are clues that some re-arranging is in order.

Yes, certainly, truth is relative, slippery, and subject to change. That has no bearing on its value, and the value of the search for it.

I don't really care how fair it is to "judge" Thais as being immature face savers. It is both my right and my duty to see things as clearly as possible. My ideas are subject to debate and revision, but I won't not have them just to be "fair".

Edited February 19, 2007 by jamman

[fruittbatt]

Snide retort, Lannarebirth! My education has not been "earned online" despite the fact that I am doing a Masters Degree by distance education. I would at least have expected you to address the issues raised rather than adopting a supercilious attitude while ignoring the substance of the discussion.

The issue raised was how best to confront someone who is lieing to you, without causing a lose of face to the liar. I don't recall the OP asking anything where a response like this:

I claim that "reality" is a construction, largely based upon our linguistic representation of sensory experiences, which are, in turn, heavily inflected by the cultural myths and beliefs (ie stories and representations...many powerful and official) which we carry around.

"Objective" to me means something having a reality, an independent authority and existence beyond sensory experience and language. What then can be said to be objective?

Likewise, I see clinical reports or any scientific information as being just another story to explain events. The most powerful hypothesis is always provisional and likely to be overturned. Statements like "the earth is round" are simply one way of describing shape. This description is contestable and subject to change.

might have been indicated, or in the least bit helpful. It seemed like the kind of tripe one would read from someone who is being paid per word.

Personally, I have no constuctive input for the OP, because I'm not the least bit concerned if someone lieing to me loses face or not.

in the broader context of notions of "what is truth" anyway and "what is 'reality'", which this discussion addressed over several posts, these remarks were pertinent. Dismissing the views of posters with whom you disagree as "tripe" is both insulting and unconstructive IMO.

[jamman]

duplicate post deleted

Edited February 19, 2007 by jamman

[fruittbatt]

I agree that subjective experience can be described entirely in subjective language, but I don't agree that all of reality is subjective. The evidence point to their also being an objective component to it, regardless that all our experiences are ultimately experienced in a subjective and intersubjective way. I don't agree that there must be a Final Ultimate Knowable Truth that we all can share for truth to be valuable and meaningful and useful. We make as much sense out of all the puzzle pieces that we can, and if there are a lot of pieces left over that don't fit in, those are clues that some re-arranging is in order.

Yes, certainly, truth is relative, slippery, and subject to change. That has no bearing on its value, and the value of the search for it.

I don't really care how fair it is to "judge" Thais as being immature face savers. It is both my right and my duty to see things as clearly as possible. My ideas are subject to debate and revision, but I won't not have them just to be "fair".

Like you, I do value "truth telling", in the sense that I usually (but not always) try to give a full and frank account of events as I see them. I recognize that my views are tinged by all sorts of assumptions, values and biases, so in that sense I can never claim to tell an "objective" truth. I also agree that it is my duty to try to see things from as many angles as i can, and I take your point that it is your right and duty to do the same. Vive la verite, vive la differ(a)nce!

Edited February 19, 2007 by fruittbatt

[borracho]

many of the pathological liars are incapable of seeing themselves honestly.

Best to move forward.

I like it when I catch someone who lies to me over a small amount of money. It's usually a cheap way to get rid of rubbish.

[jamman]

many of the pathological liars are incapable of seeing themselves honestly.

You said a mouthful. It took me the longest time for that to really sink in. My original expectations were that people know when they are lying, and that if a lie is pointed out, people are capable of seeing the inconsistency, if not always capable of admitting it. Some people are really messed up, broken. Willfully ignorant.

It can be painful and messy to love such a one, over and over and over faced with living with a person who creates her own world, and prefers it to an evidence based reality.

And please, no replies about how we all create our world. Psychopaths create their reality. You can't interact precicely without respect for evidence, and we do not create facts. We interpret facts, yes, but we do not create them. That's a huge difference. The fact that you can perform experiments that give facts that suggest that light acts as a wave, and perform different experiments that suggest that light acts as discreet particles, is consistent with the fact that we get sensory data, facts, that are not created by our ideas. We have to interpret sensory data - we don't create sensory data. The fact that light has a "dual" nature that we do not have an intuitive or consistant mental model for does not imply that we create the way that light behaves. It always behaves consistently - you can't have a mental model that will alter how it behaves.

Edited February 19, 2007 by jamman

[KireB]

There's a difference in not telling the truth and lying!

[TAWP]

Tell a big ugly Swede /../

I resent that. We prefer the term 'those with apperence deficit'.