> I think the author is confusing "well-spoken" for "nice." There is at least some overlap with the meaning of "nice", though, as in "nice guy", where it refer

> I think the author is confusing "well-spoken" for "nice." There is at least some overlap with the meaning of "nice", though, as in "nice guy", where it refers to a kind of person who is not genuinely courteous or kind for the sake of another's good (the benefit for them being spiritual reward), but someone who does it with an ulterior motive, to get something (typically unspoken, as it is underhanded) in return. The "nice guy" is likewise a conman, because his whole dishonest performance is to ingratiate himself with someone, as if doing so entitles him to something in return (think of the "nice guy" who tries to please women in order to receive attention, affection, or sexual favors, and then either pouts and whines, or becomes nasty, either overtly or in passive aggressive ways, when he doesn't receive them). Being "nice" is not the same as being "good". We should always be good, never nice.