I hadn't been to my dentist since May-2004 (normally I went on weekends, but since Sofia and the kids moved to Montreal, I am not in Ottawa on the weekends). Last night, as I was munching on some cashews, I felt a pain in one of my molars and then some grit in my mouth. I went and washed it out, assuming that maybe there had been a stone or something amount the cashews. Turns out I noticed a hole in the surface of the molar (top right, second from the back, my wisdom teeth were removed years ago). Fishing around for grit in my mouth, it looked like crumbled filling. So I assumed that my filling had cracked and crumbled and come out. Went to the dentist this morning, he took an x-ray and came back with bad news. I have a large cavity under the filling, which gave way. The filling did not fall out, but rather impacted into the space of the cavity. He did not rework the filling, since the cavity is very near the root - cleaning it out would likely result in exposing the root. As some
Comments
ohh,happy weekend,Richard! :)
kaymac: Laughter is supposed to be very good medicine.
barbara: It certainly implies that people believe there are various types of truth.
matt: Hmmm ... "God's honest truth" ... to me truth is truth, it is indivisible
freckled-one: I don't know if people are afraid of truth, at the very least they often seem to find it inconvenient.
tin-tin: I always think of a white lie as a game, a small deception that has a definite time when it is over and the truth is revealed.
breal: One would certainly hope so.
It was something that made me stop and think just how many different varieties of truth there are. For me, truth is truth. Most people it seems, or maybe I just hang around with too many lawyers, seem to believe that if what you say is not untrue, then it must be the truth. However, definitely tell you something that is true, but omit to tell you all the details - details which may significantly alter the interpretation of those details. Lawyers are very good at this (Sofia was a lawyer in Peru), a lawyer works on behalf of their client - not on behalf of justice as might be supposed. If they are the defense lawyer, they are interested in presenting their client in the best possible light and will consciously choose not to reveal any information of evidence that puts their client in a bad light. The prosecutor, on the other hand, is interested in vilifying the defendant and is only interested in presenting information damning to the defendant, conveniently ignoring any information that might show the defendant to have any redeeming qualities. So, many half truths are spoken.
Of course, there is the whole issue of privacy and stuff, but that's not where I am going.