What
Dissecting the Liar
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
Going to de-lurk here. Dryson, what you are describing is not about lying in everyday life; it's a sign of schizophrenia.
I have taken psychology when I was in engineering and design school and based off of what you are saying is that a person who is a liar is someone who is schizophrenic because they actually believe that what they speak creates the reality around the person they are speaking to.
Here is another example. I was working at a company as a temporary employee inspecting water pumps for vehicles and the day after I opened up a story I had been working on regarding zombies, two other temporary employees that I worked with began talking about the story I had written, with the one employee saying that he had written the story that I had written.
He even went to lengths to mention what I had been writing about on the page.
The person in question is named [name removed] and the last time I knew he was working for a company called [name removed] in Canton, Ohio.
There is also this contention in the same city coming from other sources that property that you purchase such as Androids and Laptops are really not your property and belong to the company that paid you for performing a task.
Now why would someone go to such lengths to create this type of lie knowing full well that property paid for with funds earned from doing a task does not make said property the property of the company where the employee works at?
I can see if the company issued me an Android or Laptop for use, then they could determine what I did with the computer or phone. But why would they lie to theirself saying that personal property bought with money earned is also considered the same as if the company issued the phone or computer to the employee?
Would such a lie be considered schizophrenic as well?
Last edited by a moderator:
Dryson, I think she was referring to you. Though I might be mistaken. That's how I took it because I was thinking the same thing before she made that post.
Dryson, I've removed the real name and company name from your post. Don't do that again.
Dryson, for whatever reason it sounds like folks are giving you a hard time (or were) at your work. I can't actually sus-out all of your story, - so if I am wrong, I apologize, but if this is the story:
You have electronic devices you personally own (payed for with personal income or funds - not by the company, regardless if you used your pay from them to purchase).
You use them at work (as many of us do).
The network you use at work is owned by the company.
Folks at your work seem to have too much information about your life that you have not shared with anyone they would be in contact with.
Then it is possible your use is being monitored and shared and folks are using it to harass you. And, it is the policy of some companies (however unprofessional) that the information you transact on their network belongs to them.
Keep your personal life personal. Don't use wireless networks you don't trust. Keep your security practices up to date and don't share personal information at work unless you don't mind it "getting around".
Outside of that, consider the possibility that this issue is not about Star Trek directly (or this forum), but something else. Some other posters have raised the possibility that your situation may also have to do with yourself and how your are perceiving things. And in other words, this may not be the best place to get truly constructive advice/help. Speak to family and relatives about it if possible - folks you know and trust far better than users on a forum.
You have electronic devices you personally own (payed for with personal income or funds - not by the company, regardless if you used your pay from them to purchase).
You use them at work (as many of us do).
The network you use at work is owned by the company.
Folks at your work seem to have too much information about your life that you have not shared with anyone they would be in contact with.
Then it is possible your use is being monitored and shared and folks are using it to harass you. And, it is the policy of some companies (however unprofessional) that the information you transact on their network belongs to them.
Keep your personal life personal. Don't use wireless networks you don't trust. Keep your security practices up to date and don't share personal information at work unless you don't mind it "getting around".
Outside of that, consider the possibility that this issue is not about Star Trek directly (or this forum), but something else. Some other posters have raised the possibility that your situation may also have to do with yourself and how your are perceiving things. And in other words, this may not be the best place to get truly constructive advice/help. Speak to family and relatives about it if possible - folks you know and trust far better than users on a forum.
The problem is that network that I use is not owned and or operated solely and specifically by the company. Its Verizon.
The company and individuals making these statements want to believe that because they have been with a company long enough or service provider long enough that it gives them rights than another person.
Basically those who value nothing more than material to say I have all of this stuff which means I am better than you are. People who have such a low self esteem that they only value objects because they are too stupid to value anything else. They have the K-mentality or Kindergartner Mentality of "My Mommy Daddy..." does this or that and we have all of this
Which makes us better than you. Now give me something so I can continue to better and more important. Losers.
While at the public library a few years ago there was young female who I caught out in the library parking lot talking about how my truck that I owned in fact actually belonged to her. A complete and outright lie that even those with her questioned her on.
Why would she lie outright like that knowing for a fact that the vehicle did not belong to her? The same mentality is present in most large communities where education is not advanced.
Even grown adults working for local radio stations act in such a manner that because you connect to their radio station using a vehicle radio that said vehicle belongs to them. No only are these people callous and stupid they actually believe that they are correct. How can someone knowing that they are wrong actually believe that they are correct? When a society thinks in this manner where they think that something that is said is reality without question, such as someones property on a home PC belonging to a library or community because the person at one time connected to a public library, yes there are communities that believe this way, then society has taken the step over the cliff and cannot recover from the assured death waiting for them at the bottom of the canyon.
Last edited:
Dryson, It seems you constantly meet people who claim your property tangible or intangible belongs to them. How often does this happen to you?
Also, I am trying to understand what you are saying about the radio station. Did they claim to own yours or someone's vehicle on the grounds that the radio in the vehicle was used to listen to the radio station?
Also, I am trying to understand what you are saying about the radio station. Did they claim to own yours or someone's vehicle on the grounds that the radio in the vehicle was used to listen to the radio station?
Basically they are trying to say that since they own the "radio tower" for the radio station that they broadcast their daily plethora of crap from that they also own all of the radio waves coming for cell phone towers and that any information they intercept belongs to them.
Here is a classis example of a duel lie.
In the Jodi Arias Case there are photos of what appears to be Jodi dragging Travis' dead body down the hallway with the last picture of him being dragged being taken at 5:32 pm on June 4th, 2008.
In the Flores Report, a report taken of witness accounts including Travis' roommates, one roommate, Enrique Cortez said that he had seen Travis walking down the stairs on a phone call, possibly a conference call on Weds. June 4th 2008.
No big deal right? Travis was salted to make the conference call that he was hosting on J0408 at 7pm. This is nearly an hour and a half later of when the time and date stamps of the photos said that Travis was already dead.
Enrique also said that he arrived home between 6pm and 6:30pm everyday because he had been taking the bus due to high gas prices. This means that Enrique would have arrived home between a half hour to an hour after the time and date stamps said that Travis had been killed yet Enrique said that he had seen Travis alive and on a phone call, possibly a conference call.
So which is the truth and which is the lie?
Travis dead and the time and date stamps of the photos showing him to be dead at 5:32 pm
Or
Enrique Cortez saying that he saw Travis still alive after he had gotten home from work between 6pm and 6:30 pm on J0408?
The information above reminds me of that Star Trek TNG episode where Riker was charged with the murder of a station doctors husband out of jealousy but it was later proven that the video had been edited.
It should also be noted that in the official statement made in the Flores report Cortez said "possibly on a conference call." If Enrique had changed his statement to another time and day he wouldn't have been able to have used the "conference call" because Weds was the only day that Travis was going to host the conference call. If Enrique omits the possibly on a conference call" then phone records would have recorded the phone call as being connected.
So which do you believe is the truth and who is lying?
The time and date photos showing Travis dead around 5:32pm
Or
Enrique Cortez saying that he had seen Travis still alive after the time and date stamps of the photo show Travis to be dead?
Why would either lie?
Why create a false time and date stamp on the photos and why lie about seeing Travis alive if the time and date stamps of the photos show Travis to be dead?
In the Jodi Arias Case there are photos of what appears to be Jodi dragging Travis' dead body down the hallway with the last picture of him being dragged being taken at 5:32 pm on June 4th, 2008.
In the Flores Report, a report taken of witness accounts including Travis' roommates, one roommate, Enrique Cortez said that he had seen Travis walking down the stairs on a phone call, possibly a conference call on Weds. June 4th 2008.
No big deal right? Travis was salted to make the conference call that he was hosting on J0408 at 7pm. This is nearly an hour and a half later of when the time and date stamps of the photos said that Travis was already dead.
Enrique also said that he arrived home between 6pm and 6:30pm everyday because he had been taking the bus due to high gas prices. This means that Enrique would have arrived home between a half hour to an hour after the time and date stamps said that Travis had been killed yet Enrique said that he had seen Travis alive and on a phone call, possibly a conference call.
So which is the truth and which is the lie?
Travis dead and the time and date stamps of the photos showing him to be dead at 5:32 pm
Or
Enrique Cortez saying that he saw Travis still alive after he had gotten home from work between 6pm and 6:30 pm on J0408?
The information above reminds me of that Star Trek TNG episode where Riker was charged with the murder of a station doctors husband out of jealousy but it was later proven that the video had been edited.
It should also be noted that in the official statement made in the Flores report Cortez said "possibly on a conference call." If Enrique had changed his statement to another time and day he wouldn't have been able to have used the "conference call" because Weds was the only day that Travis was going to host the conference call. If Enrique omits the possibly on a conference call" then phone records would have recorded the phone call as being connected.
So which do you believe is the truth and who is lying?
The time and date photos showing Travis dead around 5:32pm
Or
Enrique Cortez saying that he had seen Travis still alive after the time and date stamps of the photo show Travis to be dead?
Why would either lie?
Why create a false time and date stamp on the photos and why lie about seeing Travis alive if the time and date stamps of the photos show Travis to be dead?
Similar threads
