“I don’t think other posters will either.”
Lol, there are no other psoters at this point (I hope)
“So as long that there is a correct definition – I can use it.”
You can use whatever definition you want. But you should apologize for having called me a liar, when I was using the correct definition .
On Dec 20’th I said her case won’t be heard by the supreme court.
You said “Ok – she isn’t Lying – You are!”
you then went on and on about how conferences are also “hearings” .
(before you came up with “lie of fabrication” )
I showed you that you were incorrect. I provided from the court’s website that says clearly “The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. …. The Court usually is not under any obligation to hear these cases”
you say you use your own defitnion, fine.
But you can’t fault me for using the Court’s definition.
so I wasn’t lying when I said there wouldn’t be a hearing. There wasn’t.
At this point, you can either apologize
Or if you are still caught up on your absurd “lie of fabrication” gibberish., I’m more than happy to help you out , but you are going to have to stop ignoring my questions.
“And Btw, it’s defined in many Psychological Sites and/or Texts.”
Yes I know and its copyright to name them.
spare me.
(to be clear I’m not saying there is no such thing as a fabrication (that would be absurd) there are lots of tyoes of lies, there are lies of omission, lies of fabrication, lies of denial, bold faced lies. but a. these arent technical terms (to the best of my knowledge) and b. the key is they are LIES ie not true.
Interestingly you have managed to tell ALL these types on this thread)