“The Buddha then impressed upon his son the importance of speaking the truth.
‘Rahula, for anyone who has no shame at intentional lying, there is no evil that that person cannot do. Therefore, you should train yourself like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, not even in jest.’ ’’ — Ambalatthikarahulovada Sutta, 7

(Via Mike Industries.)

I guess part of what interests me in the ‘downfall’ of Barth/Kennedy was his reaction when confronted with the truth: Denial-denial-denial-collapse.

Sometimes liars reach for lawyers to threaten those who expose them. And, of course, lawyers will take their money, and even send um, let’s call them deficient documents to threaten and attempt to intimidate the whistle-blower/exposer.

Blue Chip was an example of spruikers-under-pressure using this ‘strategy’ … and so, I understand, is the yokel I mentioned earlier.

For the opposer and exposer of dark deeds, (like our friend at 5nz.com) it comes back to that old post of mine: Daring — if there was no risk it wouldn’t take guts

… and your own comments about vendetta. regards, – P

Because, Barth is Kennedy and that he/they produce data on a particular product which is then considered “expert data,” and then used in such a manner that is up for consideration by consumers then it is most likely a very bad thing. Even if the data produced was accurate the source itself is now tainted and damaged; it cannot be believed.

The natural problem with creating deceptions in business or to business partners is “trust.” Once trust is damaged then it is almost impossible to repair. Probably, this is true for marriage as well.

From a standpoint of pseudonyms I see no harm in them at all as long as there is transparency on the business side of things. For example, the very ordinary name of writer Eric Blair sounds real enough – and it is real – but so too does his pseudonym – George Orwell. Blair’s public was interested in the contents of his books – George Orwell was just the name on the cover; it was not meant to deceive the public but to identify his ideas and style from book to book. His publishers and agent knew his real name – and this is where his business was done – where the money changed hands; so, no harm done.

Why use a pseudonym? Probably, because some people just want to be left alone. In my own case I plan on using a pseudonym for everything I write. I think a pseudonym gives a writer a certain boldness that he/she cannot ever hope to have if they themselves are exposed to the public and that public’s criticism. Perhaps that was how it started out for Barth but snowballed into lie so big that Kennedy could not stop it.