Jump to content

Recommended Posts

felt-tip Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a little white lie never hurt anybody.

>

> "You look great in that outfit."

> "Of course I still love you and the kids."

> "I was with Dave all night. I have never even

> heard of a Teresa."


...until the truth comes out...and it usually does...


No, I haven't seen the film Sean.

LOL Mick Mac!


Seriously though, I am often told that I am too honest. In reality, it is my guess that what the other person really means is that I am rude or tactless (or worse)! It's never really bothered me - until now. Life has also shown me that recipients of the truth are often ill-equipped to deal with it. Sure, hearing the truth can hurt - but the dispensing of it can be equally emotionally trying. However, to not give it, eats away at the conscience - I find. This destructive negative outweighs any purported positive in telling the lie in the first instance - in my experience.

If your experiences are that people are ill-equipped to deal with your version of the truth then why do you dispense it so freely - especially when your version of the truth is not necessarily the actual truth?


Do your truth-dispensing crusades hint at an inability to confront your own insecurities? To put on to other people 'hard truths' to deal with so that you don't have to address your own?

giggirl Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lady M - what's happened - give an example.


Oh blimey GG...no need to worry...I'm just having one of those deeply pensive moments LOL. And I'm stuck!


But take for example felt-tip's example above:


> a little white lie never hurt anybody.

>

> "You look great in that outfit."


Well, why say something like that if you don't mean it? Perhaps you want an easy life, perhaps you fear hurting that person's feelings? But surely, if your friend (or whoever) invites honest opinion, then shouldn't you respect that request and give it?

Basically LadyM, yes, be honest if someone invites your honest opinion, but what leaglebeagle said a few hours ago:


Honest whenever you can with a big dose of tactful?


I wouldn't tell someone they looked great in an outfit if that wasn't true, but I wouldn't want to send them away feeling negative about it. I'd just remind them how fabulous they looked in another outfit. I'd go all Gok on their ass. Oh, and I don't give unsolicited opinions - someone would need to ask first.


Obviously some situations are more serious than that. It's not only hurt feelings that you need to be careful to avoid, as you said above "Life has also shown me that recipients of the truth are often ill-equipped to deal with it". Very wise Lady M. I think in any situation I want to tell the truth but would try very hard to point someone in a positive direction if possible.

I have no idea if the following story is true but I hope it is. I heard it years ago and I think it's a lovely story so I just googled it. It's about Jimmy Carter's mother, who sounds like a real honey.


Miss Lillian was aware of her son's reputation for honesty, which had become a topic of curiosity among many politicians and even reporters. During a 1986 speech at the University of Tennessee, Jody Powell told a story about a television reporter who grilled Miss Lillian on this topic. "Is it true," asked the reporter, "that your son doesn't lie? Can you tell me he has never told a lie?"


"Well, I reckon he might have told a little white lie now and then," replied Miss Lillian.


The reporter spotted the opening. "I thought you said he didn't lie!" she exclaimed. "Are you telling me that white lies aren't as bad as black lies? Just what do you mean by a white lie?"


"Well," drawled Miss Lillian, "do you remember when you came in this morning and I told you how nice you looked and how glad I was to see you...?"

Well Lady M, a porky is always a porky. If you know what the truth is as an absolute fact then firstly examine your own motives in passing on this information. Sometimes ignorance really is bliss. If you really must pass this on to other interested parties then be responsible; try very hard not to hurt feelings or do any damage. The best of intentions are sometimes not always enough.


Pxx

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • why do we think we have the right for the elected local council to be transparent?
    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...