"Gregory Morrow" wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
> "Gregory Morrow" wrote:
> > Sheldon wrote:
> > > PeterLucas wrote:
>
> > > > My 50th party lasted 17 days (IIRC!!), but the main party
> > > > was for about 25-30 of my closest friends.
>
> > > Wow... 25-30 *closest* friends,
>
> > [...snippage of Sheldon SAILING into PL's pre - conceived "notions",
> lol...]
>
> > > To have so many "closest" friends you mu st be a very shallow person
> > > and have an extremely low sense of self worth --- I wonder how well
> > > you even know yourself, probably not at all --- ?because it's not
> > > possible to have so many profoundly intimate relationships
> > > simultaneously, not even separately in a life time
>
> > .
>
> > Well, what Peterbreath Puke - ass lacks in self - knowledge he surely
> makes
> > up for it in the "braggadocio" dept....honestly, you'd think he was the
> Ari
> > Onassis of Australia or somethin'..and continuing in the guinea vein ?he
> > come off in fact sorta like an Antipodean Pinocchio.
>
> > <chuckle>
> >
> Gee, I didn't mean what I wrote in such a directly personal way, I
> don't even know Peter Lucas... my post was directed towards *anyone*
> who speaks of everyone they ever met, however how briefly, as their
> *friend*.. just because someone ain't an enemy doesn't automatically
> elevate them to friend, let alone closest friend... my closest friends
> all know each other equally intimately as I know them and they know
> me, otherwise they can't fit the description of my closest friends...
> can't possibly be all that close when who you associate with and to
> what degree is a secret... closEST friends have no secrets, none...
> because the obverse is lying to each other by sin of omission and
> closest friends never lie to each other or they are no kind of friends
> at all.
> --------------
>
> Yep, you've said it very well. �Establishing trust from the very first
> is *must*, then a relationship can continue forward. �Many these
> days don't even know the concept of "trust"...and "integrity" is
> another concept that is foreign to many.

Today integrity is practically nonexistant, is why so many
relationships fail. Lack of integrity is a primary reason for the
sucess of the Internet, it allows people to morph into however many
identities... from my personal experience I guestimate that more than
half of usenetters are not who they claim, about equal to the divorce
rate. Integrity is inversely proportional to technology, the more
technological devices the less integrity there is... computers,
digital cameras, videocams, cell phones, etc. all make possible and
encourage aberrant behavior far more than it benefits humanity, that
there's any benefit at all is just a myth, a lame excuse. All these
devices came about because people are always looking for new ways to
cheat... necessity is the mother of invention. In any and all
relationships where each has their own cell phone you can take it to
the bank that both are cheating (carrying on some various and sundry
clandestine endeavers behind each others back), may not start out that
way but temptation and opportunity are very powerful motivators that
transcend promises.. if your SO suddenly decides they need a video cam
on their computer be very wary... there really is no legitimate reason
for anyone to see who they're talking with in real time except hanky
panky.