TED Conversations

Jaime Mogollón Michilot

Economic Student,

This conversation is closed.

How we can fight the corruption in developing nations?

In most of this nation, corruption have an economic and social dimension. What we can do for decrease the corruption. Mr. Mather have an interesting solution. What do you think?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Oct 5 2013: how about not giving the state that much power? if the state is not in charge to give some kind of permits, you can't bribe them to give you a permit.
    • Oct 5 2013: In some tyrannic nations such as china ,North Korea and Iran how the people can succeed in not giving the state that much power ? The government have army ,police and jails.It is a very long and hard way for the people there to go .As a Chinese people ,i really feel very depressed when think of that.
    • thumb
      Oct 6 2013: How about not giving the market that much power?

      What is it that makes you see with one eye only? What causes this Pavlov's reflex to relate corruption to governments exclusively? How do your denial mechanism function and cope with corruption within businesses?

      Is this indoctrination or conditioning, or both or worse?

      Be generous as well.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: does not make sense. corruption is not a market phenomenon. corruption happens between the ruler and the ruled.

        how about answering the questions like they were asked to you?
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: Your explanation is worldly innocent and does not reflect reality. Try again, be generous.

          And in case you missed it, you'll find my answer to the original question at the top of this conversation. You can get there by pressing the 'View the full conversation.' text.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: your explanation is nonexistent. please try at least.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: So to you there is no corruption in the market, no corporate crime of this sort, right?

          Could you then please describe what the recent incident in the delayed market entry of generic medicines is to you, if not corruption?


          If one private company bribes other private companies to postpone their competition, how do you call this? What is your wording for this sort of behavior?

          The example is random yet I choose for a German company, so no other nation can feel offended.

          What is your language on this?
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: in libertarian moral theory, everyone is entitled to put a product on the market any time he chooses. if i pay a company to delay its own product, it is not bribe, it is morally unobjectionable.

        you would see that if you were running an actual company. if someone shows up, and tells you, here is a million dollars, please delay your lunch half a year, you just make a decision. and if men in blue suits show up to take you away, this is immoral and must be considered aggression.

        i actually happen to know a guy that accepted such a deal, in an even more serious form. a international firm arrived late to the market, and could not kick out the local competition. this local competition happened to be a person i know. so they offered a *huge* sum to buy the company, and integrate it into theirs, effectively discontinue their service. they could say: get the hell out of here. but no, he anticipated that instead of running his company in a risky business environment, why not take so much money that he could make out of his business in the following decade, and just leave. and, of course, start another business. are you saying that this setting should be illegal? that person was immoral? or the company was? on what grounds? who are you to interfere with their own lives and property?

        it is not that difficult, if someone actually tries to understand, and not just tries to dismiss. companies being evil is nothing short of statist propaganda that you bought on face value. and not only you bought it, you are proud of your purchase. that is sad.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: So in other words, murder should be legal, because you do not accept any other moral authority but yours. You do not consider yourself as part of the society you live in. You take advantage of it, yet you claim at the same time, that you are completely independent from them.

          Those with the bigger guns kill those with the smaller guns. It is not the problem of the big-gun that the other person had just a smaller one, or no weapon at all.

          Who is anybody to tell you not to kill, right? You made some money and bought a gun, so you can use it as ever you choose too. Your neighbor didn't smile - kill. The children in the backyard to loud - kill. No police, no law, no morals.

          That is what you just said.

          But it got clearer now to me why it is important to prevent mindsets like yours from spreading.

          If you don't care for the society you life in, there is no reason why society should tolerate such parasitic, egocentric and antisocial behavior.

          I am not even surprised that you happen to know such guys, it matches the picture.

          I do not agree with anything in your explanation and consider it of high criminal potential and even criminal in itself.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: But thank you for the time you put in the writing. This I actually didn't expect.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: What is the name of this guy, or the name of his company? It would be interesting to find out if court proceedings could be opened on this fraud.

          You can e-mail me, so the name won't go public if I am mistaken.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: i still haven't figured out if you are just trolling or you are that much lacking in reasoning. both possibilities frighten me. how could i get into a position in which i have to explain to a grown up person why a business deal is a mutually agreed upon arrangement, and why a murder is not. i would have to explain why i accept no moral authority other than me in how do i use my own property, how do i run my own company, etc. i would have to explain that a murdered person most likely disagrees with the act of murder. it should be obvious. so either you are disconnected from moral in a way that i find hard to understand, or you spend time on a forum just to disrupt conversations. which one is it? please don't answer, your answer is irrelevant in both cases.

        this is in fact an open letter to other participants. how can i find out which one is the case here?
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: I frighten you?

          Let me try again, maybe this will help you to get the picture.

          Due to a mutual agreement in a business deal the price for an important medicine becomes to high for many people to afford it. The production cost of this product is $1, the retail price within the price-fixing agreement goes for $4500 a pill. The people in need could spent a maximum of $20, not more, so still $4480 missing.

          As the agreement was mutual between the business partners, and according to your logic, the death of thousands of people do not count for intentional murder.

          Let me now take this picture, to help you out on my murder examples before, as you tend to take me literally exactly where I expect your abstractive ability to kick in. As this obviously didn't happen, here it goes.

          Your neighbor didn't smile, you and your friend mutually agree to kill him - and so you do.

          The children in the backyard to loud - you and your friend mutually agree to kill them - and so you do.

          How can a mutual agreement between any two entities justify to skip the consequences this agreement has on other involved parties?

          Your reasoning, your moral stops right there. One agreement, mutual, f*** the rest.

          Pretty convenient, isn't it? No holistic approach necessary.

          Similar behavior can be observed in parasitic viruses or bacteria, who are lethal to their host organism. They need the host for their temporary survival to reproduce and to infect new host organisms for the long term scheme.

          The difference in between you and me is, that you don't care for the host organism as long as you've got your genes reproduced and spread. I like to reproduce and spread as well, yet I wish the host organism to be as well as I am. I accept my dependency on my host and take responsibility for that. Nature developed this kind of species as well, they are called symbionts and those do not kill their hosts.

          This analogy is risky, as it takes empathy and imagination to grasp its scope. Lets try.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: What is the name of this guy you mentioned before, or the name of his company?

          With some more details you may add as well, I could pass this information to a friend of mine who has specialized in this sort of fraud as from your lines this deal seems to be of. He is a lawyer.

          You can contact me via e-mail so the name of that person doesn't go public here.

          If it wasn't fraud, as you seem to see it, nothing will happen to that guy. If it was, as it appears to me, justice will have its say if the timing still allows for it.

          The link to my e-mail is on my profile page.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: As you ask for an external point of view, I would say that Lejan has a different position on what is moral than you do. In his arguments of his case, he is expressing that different perspective rather than trolling.

          My guess is that he does not really expect you to turn over the name of the guy whose business was acquired by a competitor. Laws regarding economic transactions vary across countries. I am certainly unfamiliar with economic laws in Germany, where Lejan makes his home. Where I live, businesses are often acquired absolutely publicly in a way that gives competitive advantage to the purchaser. It is rare that legal authorities intervene. Roughly speaking, they would not intervene if it is easy for new entrants to challenge in the markets where the merged firm competes or where there is ample existing competition.

          You are focusing on mutual agreements between parties and Lejan is looking at the effect on a third party.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: "Due to a mutual agreement in a business deal the price for an important medicine becomes .."

        let me stop reading right here, because it is already false. companies can't set the price of any good. they can sell at a higher price, but then any competitor can come along, and outsell them. they can't force every chemical plant to comply. it is impossible that not a single company on earth will say: nope, i'm not going to cooperate with these guys, but rather, i increase my output instead, and take the entire market.

        but let us assume for a second that all companies (including future companies) agree on a higher price. is that immoral? nope. a company is free to stop producing at any time. a company is free to set their prices at whatever level. a company can change its pricing without notice and explanation. a company can set its production volume at any level, and change at any time. these are all completely moral, legal, unobjectionable business decisions.

        the opposite of that is either mob rule or socialism. which one is your choice?

        ps: stupid questions will be continued to be ignored. stop being obnoxious.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: Because you stopped reading, you didn't see the term 'price-fixing agreement' or shall I explain to you what that means?

          Read through, then reply.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: You give me an example and you ask for my opinion if that should be illegal and if that person was immoral. But the moment I am willing to check the example against existing laws, to see weather or not my 'gut feeling and moral compass is right on this, you refuse to go into detail.

          If this deal was as normal and legal as you claim it was, where is the problem?

          Or yet another claim. Trust me, because I say so.

          Thats not enough to support an argument, so I ask you again for more details on that deal.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: so if you use a magic term, you will suddenly be right? i just explained to you that price fixing agreement does not work in a free market setting, but even if it did, it still would not be immoral.

        we are not talking about legality. laws go against morals and against the free market in many ways. for example many times laws fix prices or stop competing companies to enter the market. it is also a usual setting when market leaders come together and try to convince the government to do some price fixing for them, as they can't do that on their own. bringing the topic of legality into a moral debate is pretty much like bringing a firearm to a business meeting. it indicates that the person is not very much interested in moral theory.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: To me there is no magic in this term, I've seen it working. It works.

          It is difficult to tell if you ever worked in any real market environment, because if you did, you wouldn't be so naive in hands-on experiences. It seems as if you were citing most of the time out of some books someone else wrote. In case you have worked in the industry, you seem not to have observed much of your environment. Maybe you have not been close enough to the decisions table? Or have you? But then, you wouldn't talk this way...

          Anyway, by what you say about my given corporate crime example, I conclude, that this was neither intentional nor negligence murder or killing to you. There are no related moral obligations in this context whatsoever. Would you agree if I put it this way seen from your standpoint?

          Do I understand you right in saying, that laws are not based on mutual agreements?
          Do I understand you right in saying, that morals have no influence on law?
          Do I understand you right in saying, that the market is incapable for price fixing on its own?
          Do you separate legality from laws and/or from agreements?
          Could you imagine, that the threat equivalent of firearms takes place in business meetings?

          Would you agree, that according to your theory, you and your friend are allowed to kill those loud children in the backyard, if both of you just agreed on it? Not the children. Just you and your friend make this agreement. If you don't agree could you then please explain the difference to the corporate crime example? And if you agree, could you then please elaborate on that as well.

          Does your country has a law about helpfulness? Would it be legal to refuse to help people out of mortal danger, provided your own safety first? Could you pass a car-crash legally not calling for an ambulance? In Germany we have such a law. If your country has too, what do you think about it?

          Many questions, I know, but blurriness doesn't help much.
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: just for start: one of us severely overestimates his knowledge, and underestimates the other's.

        i'm owner in a small firm, and we work for the market. the example i told happened between firms working for the market, and i have insider information on what happened. if i cite from a book, i don't say "i know someone", okay?

        let's see the questions, and i'm sad we really need to answer such things.

        laws are NOT based on mutual agreement.

        morals sometimes have influence on laws, other times don't.

        the free market is mostly incapable of price fixing. in the rare cases when it can, it is limited in scope and temporary.

        legality = laws =/= agreement

        the phrase "threat equivalent" does not make sense in the context.

        according to my theory, i'm not allowed to kill anyone, unless it is the only way to defend another life from an attack. even this situation is fishy. however, we can kill anyone that agrees to be killed though. or we can kill ourselves. killing is not immoral per se, only if the killed person did not agree to it beforehand. the point is, we can do anything with *our* life and property, but not with others' without permit. understanding the role of ownership is the key.

        my country has the craziest laws possible. europe, after all. for example yes, i have to help in certain situations. this is a law against moral. help should be a voluntary action. on the other hand, my neighbors are free to not talk to me anymore, my friends can refuse to pick up the phone, and the waiter can refuse to bring me food if they find out that i left someone die in a car. because they also can use their life and property as they want.
        • thumb
          Oct 6 2013: Quite easy to get you going on the 'male dominance' thing.

          Anyway, you own a small firm - fine. Get at bigger tables, to understand what's working, even though your book theory tells you, it isn't.

          So laws are not based on agreements to you, right? Which individual do you have in your country who makes your laws? Whats his/her name? Or is it a god?

          In my country there is a whole process in which our laws get made. Many people are involved in this process. At the end of this process out of multiple steps, revisions, and adoptions, there is a voting in the parliament, which either passes the law, or rejects it. The parliament consists out of representatives which got elected by the people of my country, which then, in their name, form an agreement when a law is passed. This is a usual democratic process.

          I don't know about your law making individual, but we have agreements on laws. What legality means should be understandable, then.

          I made a mistake, sorry. I ask for 'your theory' on the killing examples, but what I meant was the 'libertarian moral theory' which you cited before. Given your answer, they are not the same.

          Could you please try again to argue from that libertarian theory, because as you used it before, we should stay consistent here.

          Do I understand you right, that you don't agree, that 'helpfulness' is a necessity within a society or a community of people? It should only be voluntary and neither expected nor regulated, right? You could imagine yourself doing this consciously? I don't mean situations in which people get paralyzed in stress situations and therefore cant help, or when they get grid-blocked within a crowd paralysis. I mean a truly conscious decision not to help someone in need if it could easily be done. You wouldn't have to risk anything. Maybe, just calling an ambulance, because the old lady dropped on the ground and lays there bleeding. You could pass by her not helping? What would be your justification? Freedom of choice?
      • thumb
        Oct 6 2013: "get me"? are you trying? however, claiming superior knowledge is not "male dominance" in my book.

        laws are made (through a complex mechanism) on majority vote. majority is not mutual. i have to explain why majority is not mutual? i hope not.

        i don't know where do you get the impression that my moral and libertarian moral would be different. they are the same, and thus they both reject killing unless it is voluntary on the part of the killed, which is unusual, but possible in some situations.

        helpfulness is not a necessity. it is a natural human trait, it is very widespread, probably also very beneficial, but not necessary. if somebody is such an asshole that he just drives off without even calling the ambulance, this person is not violating libertarian moral law. he faces, however, the possible disgust of his fellow men, and he might find himself in a position in which he will be rejected by members of the community. according to libertarian theory for example, nobody is entitled to provide services to anybody, unless a contract has been made previously. so being a rejected person might put you in a very hard situation.

        for example you will never be able to have a beer in my pub. in a libertarian world, not this one. in this one, i have to serve you if i have a pub.
        • thumb
          Oct 7 2013: Thats right, you and your books claim it as norm.

          The majority vote of a group of n>2 free individuals is the equivalent to mutual agreement of its smallest form n=2 free individuals. Remember, you are free to leave the group of n>2 free individuals at any given time. Nobody forces you to stay. Thus, the fact you stay, makes you mutually agree with the majority vote. It is that simple. It is the essence of freedom!

          You can not seriously believe it to be any different. That much worldly innocence was beyond repair. You didn't grew up in North Korea, did you? You may have reached this level of freedom later than I did, that could be if you are old enough and born at the place stated in your profile. But there was enough time since for you to figure that out.

          It usually becomes clear latest at kindergarten. If you are in a group of three and you don't like the suggested game, you leave the group. Yet the moment you join in and play along, you agree to that game mutually. Thats your freedom of choice. No one to blame.

          So the fact that you didn't leave your county because of its laws, makes you agree with those laws. I am surprised that we even need to discuss these basic social principles here, especially as 'freedom' is one of your major claims. Thats odd.

          You are even free to influence your agreement in your favor. This is the essence of democracy! Get active, get involved in the process of law making, make suggestions what may works better for the group. But do not pretend to have no freedom of choice and your agreement isn't mutual. Get out of your theory books, get real, stop babbling!

          If your and libertarian moral were the same, your line of argument breaks even logically. Get a wider picture, include cause and effect, get to its very essence and not stuck in meaningless definitions and you may then find it yourself. I doubt it though, but there is a chance.

          Your beer example is interesting and you really life in a strange country if what you say is true.
        • thumb
          Oct 7 2013: In Germany we have laws concerning the 'freedom of contract', which define the rules of trade. It combines the principle of 'private autonomy', 'civil laws' and 'good morals' and balance them as good as possible. It says, that the 'freedom of contract' is free, as long it does not violate 'civil laws' and 'good morals'. Once this is kept, nobody 'has to serve' anybody. Some further regulations apply to government services and certain professions, medical doctors for instance, as of for different and well agreed reasons.

          Pub owner usually have their 'house rules' in Germany and if you violate them, you'll be kicked out. Pretty simple, pretty straight forward, pretty effective. You can even select who is allowed in and who isn't, as long as it respects the given discrimination laws. No tie? To bad, get out buddy. Thats allowed here. You are Hungarian? To bad, get out buddy! That would be illegal here. And rightly so.

          Trades or rules of trade and their customs are inseparable form their social environment. It is an integrative part of society, not an self-feeding independent concept of mind. Trade is not entitled to claim any privileges, any 'special laws' which would contradict with the laws and agreements of the society it is embedded in. I don't even understand what makes you think that, other than taking it by its parasitic, self-centered and misanthropic origin and nature.

          If you seriously believe, that helpfulness is no necessity for social behaviour and does not play a vital and important role in any society, your social skills are either severely damaged, crippled or have not developed at all.

          On this I like to ask you a very personal question, which, of course, you are not obliged to answer at all. But if you do, please be honest, as it would help my considerations on this matter on which no answer is better that a faked one. If you like to answer, but not in public, you can use my e-mail on my profile.
        • thumb
          Oct 7 2013: My question is about your childhood, especially the very vulnerable periods and stages in which a child develops its first connections towards its parents and other adults inside and outside the family. Traumatic experiences in those sensitive periods regarding attachment, bindings, the formation of trust, self-esteem, the sense of being loved or rejected are well known to have a negative impact in the development of the social behavior and abilities of a child. Have you experienced such trauma or any other kind of abuse in your early years?

          This my question is sincere, as a positive answer would at least allow me to comprehend, to understand the source, the origin of this kind of antisocial and misanthropic ethos of your believes, your world view reflects.

          I don't think you make all of this up, or that you are just joking. You seems to believe in what you say and I like to find out why.

          The reason for this my curiosity, my interest is the fact, that you are the only person I encountered so far in my entire life, with such an redial mindset on human relations. I have seen enough impact of something alike, but I never got to actually 'speak' to one.

          At this point and without better knowledge about what made you this way, I tend to believe, that your mindset is an parasitic menace to almost any society you would live in. You do not take on any responsibility towards your fellow men. You separate. You don't cooperate emotionally. You don't care. You distort the concept of freedom. The level of modern anonymity is on your side. You are reason for its existence. If society wasn't as crippled as it is, its immune system would have already rejected you. No, even better, it would have helped you. But as I said, this is seen at this point without better knowledge about what made you this way. I can't 'feel' you. Therefore it would be helpful to me if you decide to answer my question honestly, as it could confirm my only explanation. I respect any of your choices.
      • thumb
        Oct 7 2013: quick note: i'm not very patient. if you write such long posts, i will not read them very carefully. i have better things to do. so i try to address the main points, and ignore the smaller ones.

        you claim that majority vote is as good as mutual agreement. it is just a claim with no support. i define mutual agreement as n out of n agrees. the statement that i can leave is mafia logic. my neighbors can't vote on what color my rooftop should be. this logic says: we are stronger, comply or we beat you up. on the contrary, my ethics says: you do whatever you want with your own house. there is no majority vote. majority vote has to be agreed upon beforehand. democracy is not like that.

        laws concerning the freedom of contract is a contradiction. a law can only limit the freedom of contract, and indeed it is what happens. it is of course condescending and/or coercive. there should be no legal limit in what adult individuals can agree upon.

        childhood experience is important. in our society, children develop into two directions: either you are strong enough to take what you want, or you side with the guy that is strong enough. you can be the served or the servant. the entire logic of the state is based on that. either you climb the social hierarchy and become a ruler, or you become friends with the powers that be. this mindset is understandable, since this setting seems to be here forever, with no alternative. if you believe that you will live and die under the rule of a regime, it breaks your opposition easily. that is the era we live in. but it won't last forever. every year, more and more people understand how it works. today it is 1 of a 1000, 10000 maybe. when it reaches 5%, things get going faster.

        step one of solving a problem: admit the problem.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: 'Mafia logic' is the core of libertarian 'moral' theory and chances are high, that followers won't admit that. You are exemplary for this problem.

          Fortunately, former sympathizers of your godfathers woke in the recent elections this year in Germany and kicked the Liberal Party out of parliament.

          Thats good news! They lost almost 10% (9.8%) of their former voters in one single blow. Thats good news too. When people understand how its works, they stop voting for it, as they get to realize its destructive potential on society.

          Libertarian 'moral' theory will have no say in the next 4 years in the policy of my country!

          Step one : checked.

          Actually, I didn't expect this to happen so clearly, as Germany still isn't effected much by the European and worldwide banking crises. But the message seems to have gotten through, that the 'privatization of profits' comes with the 'socialization of losses' in Libertarian 'moral' practice.

          But there is no time to rest, as lethal parasites reproduce fast not only in biology.

          This time, Libertarians have exposed their true intentions way to clumsy, which will result in an even stealthier strategy for the future. This virus is polymorph and the immune system of society got stay alert to prevent those parasites from spreading.

          Education helps on this and so does democracy and its majority vote. At its best, direct democracy could deal with those shape-changers even more effectively.

          Predatory exploitation runs on minority rule, thats why the people who make society got to get involved to prevent this to happen.

          Its just like kindergarten, Krisztián. If you don't like to play outside with the other kids of your group, that perfectly OK. You don't have to. But get off their lunch boxes in the kitchen.

          Wow, again soooo many words for so little patience ... so my congratulations to you if you made it here ...

          I assume your are not going to give any detail on this possible corporate crime you mentioned? Surprise, surprise ... :o)
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: I accept that you didn't answer my question on your childhood experiences.
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2013: as usual, i'm replying only to the parts that have a place in a civilized conversation, and also interesting and meaningful. for example of course ignoring any questions about my childhood, as it does not belong, and obviously we are not in such intimate relationship.

        but unfortunately, i found nothing this time. you have managed to fill the 2000 characters with namecalling, condescending remarks, mocking and irrelevant statements. nice job.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: At least your patience managed 2000 characters. Thats good, we can build on that.

          As for condescending remarks and mocking you can't blame others for what you do yourself, right? And I am not taking me as your only 'target' example in this forum.

          Imagine 2000 characters filled only by repetitions of 'I hate you' wouldn't that be just plain boring?


          'Irrelevant statements' are a bit more difficult, by the fact, that their total relevance is not decided by you alone. You could say, 'your statements are irrelevant to me', that would work logically, yet claiming it 'absolute' doesn't by the fact alone, that they are relevant to me.

          Yet I tend to do the same mistake myself from time to time, so thank you for reminding me indirectly on that, and probably unintentionally as well ... :o)

          On 'namecalling' I am not sure. Did I offend you in using bad language?

          If I did, I am sorry for that and apologize for it.

          Would it help if instead me saying 'you are parasitic' to say 'libertarian moral theory is parasitic', but what would this possibly change, as you yourself said, that this is your moral code?

          'You' takes 3 and 'libertarian moral theory' 22 digits and I have to consider you being short-tempered. So what shall I do? Abbreviate? LMT for 'libertarian moral theory'? Also just 3 digits, yet remaining its meaning to 'You'.

          I will do as you please, as both of us would know about it. Let me in what you think of that.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: Oh, I almost forgot:

          I am grateful that I can say, that I was privileged to have been borne into a caring, loving and forgiving family. Values have been taught by exemplary living of both of my parents and close relatives, which allowed for my lighthearted, cheerful and just beautiful childhood to come true.

          I have never seen or heard my parents argue with one another or anything alike. As this much of harmony is pretty unusual, it did cause me some troubles later in life, as I had to learn how to deal with conflicts appropriate in my own relationships. Yet as a child, i couldn't have asked for more.

          Intimate indeed this information is, yet nothing the world shouldn't know of.

          But this is just me and I respect your decision as I said.
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2013: this overdue emphasis and overly detailed talk about childhood makes me more suspicious than anything. who are you talking to right now? what do you hope to achieve? don't answer that. rhetorical question.
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: rhetorical answer

          I was talking to you.

          I didn't hope to archive anything but to demonstrate, that 'intimate relationship' to me is no necessity to talk about my childhood. At least not in the level of detail I choose, which actually wasn't really detailed at all. But it is honest and true.
      • thumb
        Oct 8 2013: saying "i'm honest" does not make much sense, does it?
        • thumb
          Oct 8 2013: I don't understand what you mean by that.

          It doesn't help you to distinguish if I am lying or not, that is true if that is what you mean, but this your ability does neither change the validity of what I was saying, nor does it alter the way in which I choose my words.

          Just skip what isn't helping you, yet do ask when something is unclear.
      • Comment deleted

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.