(Taking time out of my work as cricket correspondent because the cricket is going... not well, and putting in a bid for a second job as philosophy/ethics correspondent with some random musings). I've really appreciated and enjoyed this thread. I'm almost certainly going to use TSP story as an example when teaching on ethics of truth and lies. It's an interesting 'test case' for different theories about why lies are bad. E.g. does it matter whether you are intentionally trying to deceive other people? Does it matter whether there are some specific people who are hurt by the lie? How would we draw the line between acceptable embellishment/dramatic effect and culpable lies (& is it about the author's intention, or other people's expectations in context, or both, or something else?) One thing that I've been thinking about a lot is the norm of trust, how important it is, what a big deal it is to lose it, and how habitual liars can mess with your head. We trust nearly everybody to tell the truth nearly all the time because otherwise we can't function as social animals. Without realising it, we regularly go through quite a lot of mental contortions in order to avoid thinking that another person is lying. And even if somebody lies about one thing, for reasons, we generally believe them about other stuff (my students regularly lie to me about doing the reading for class, but I still believe what they tell me about the weather or their plans for the summer holidays, because why wouldn't I?) And then... every now and then there's somebody who doesn't seem to recognise the norm of truth at all, who lies randomly not only for their own advantage but also because they don't care whether what they or anyone else says is true [political examples omitted]. One disturbing feature of the whole TSP story, I think, is the possibility that RW/SW might be in that category. I don't actually think that myself yet. But I can understand why some posters do. Anyway. Just to say thanks to everyone for your time and your thoughts.