A few days ago, a post was made about Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman "lying" because he said that our current President was appointed by 5 members of the U.S. Supreme Court. Apparently, this particular poster does not understand the difference between "lying" and stating one's opinion. He's not the only offender, as I have noticed that labeling one a "liar" is a pretty common thing on this message board. Of course, it's not surprising, considering that talking heads and TV political show hosts call others "liar" with abandon. In my opinion, calling one a "liar" is one of the worst things you can call a person because that calls into serious question the person's integrity, underlying character, and overall honesty. I believe it's a charge that's levelled far too often, when people simply disagree with a person's expressed OPINION. And I think it is one of the reasons that discourse in this country has taken on an uncivil tone. Presumably, we were all brought up to treat others with respect, and I submit that many of us do not follow that basic lesson of decent upbringing. In my opinion, a good start would be to not call someone a "liar" when someone expresses what is really an opinion, stated to express one's view, without intent to deceive. So, in the hope that the discourse can take a less strident and accusatory, more civil and ACCURATE, tone here's a primer on the difference between "lying" and expressing one's opinion. Lie n. -- 1. to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive 2. an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive. Opinion n. 1. a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter 2. belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge 3. a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute. Now, applying the above definitions to Senator Lieberman's statement re: the U.S. Supreme Court and President Bush, it's quite clear that Senator Lieberman's statement falls within the definition of "opinion," rather than "lie." Certainly, it can be argued that Senator Lieberman may actually believe that the Court did "appoint" President Bush, in the sense that they decided the case on political grounds and used the law to justify the decision, and said decision resulted in President Bush being named the winner of the election. It also may be argued that Senator Lieberman may believe or have concluded that the Supreme Court "appointed" President Bush (as described in the preceding sentence), but that conclusion or belief is open to dispute. Certainly, Senator Lieberman is well aware that his statement is open to dispute. Even clearer is that Senator Lieberman made his statement without the requisite "intent to deceive" that is an element of "lying." In essence, the poster who accused Senator Lieberman of "lying" apparently failed to catch the not-so-subtle distinction between a statement of campaign rhetoric -- which, by the way, captures the way many in this country (rightly or wrongly) view the 2002 Presidential election -- and a "lie," which, by definition, entails intent to deceive. Again, I post this because I view calling someone a "liar" as a very serious attack on someone's integrity that should be reserved for situations when it's clear that someone MEANS to be deceptively untruthful. I've seen posts by many who post on the main board but won't post here, characterizing this board as "slimy" or "dirty" because of the lack of civil discourse and open personal attacks on each other's character. I hope that by being mindful of the basic distinction between lying and expressing opinion, and treating each other with the respect our parents taught us to treat others with, we might be a bit more civil toward those with whose opinions we disagree. JMO.