Allow me to muddy the water. Think of a mapping application, with multiple zoom levels. If one audience is zoomed out, the route from Dallas to Toronto might

Allow me to muddy the water. Think of a mapping application, with multiple zoom levels. If one audience is zoomed out, the route from Dallas to Toronto might look like a straight line. Zooming in, we see much more detail, and the route is anything but straight. Similarly, much of what's called "lying" amounts to disagreements about how details are summarized, especially when suspicions are in play. A second type of "lying" involves estimates af future events. "So-and-so will win the French election." They lose. I am accused of "lying" for my bogus prediction. No, I'm a lousy prophet. Or I genuinely hold a certain viewpoint, and then am disproven. I apologize. However, error is (through some feat of mind reading) determined to show me a liar. Parents are not "lying" when they manage the rate at which facts are dispensed to the children based upon their state of development. Finally, there are classification levels of government information, and official answers to questions are obfuscated. Clapper famously said he had no idea about the London bombers (some years ago). Did he "lie" to Congress in an unclassified setting, or do his job, or both? Summary: like so many words, "liar" seems used a bit carelessly these days. This posting is arguably just a bunch of cheap rationalizations. All I can say is that the eye of the Almighty doesn't blink, and communicating the facts with maximum fidelity is crucial.