Did I screw over a **** man?

Hi, I think you should do two things:

1. Let a superior know of the situation before he begins spreading rumors around. That way, perhaps your company can set up some sort of system to get this guy to work without being an inconvenience on you.

2. Try to find alternatives for him, such as public transportation. I'm not sure if the government has transportation services for the mentally challenged, but if they do, you can look into that as well.

If your co-workers ***** at you for treating him badly, then that's just stupid. They don't attend his parties and generally ignore him, then start yelling at you just for trying to have free will?

MrGreezer I love you. :oops: Seriously I love your posts, but this isn't the time to be admiring you.

This is one of those times where you didn't do anything wrong, but you'll probably get ****ed over for being a nice guy. In regard to him spreading rumours about you in the event he loses... I guess just tell the truth if anyone pesters you over it. He assumed you were going to take him home, but you already had plans. Yes, you already had plans. These plans be they drinking, or driving home alone, did NOT involve him in any shape or form. He DID interrupt your plans as non-existent as they were. You tell your co-workers, if they pester you, that you already drove him to work, on your day off, after he lied to you, and that you were going to drive him home because no one else will. If he expects you to drive him home, then he - and your co workers - will accept that you'll do it WHEN you feel like it.

Yes, you're in a delicate situation, but you're only there because you're the only one nice enough to give this manipulative guy a break - and I fully beleive that he is manipulative as you say. So if anyone pesters you about it, you tell them if they don't like it THEY take on the responsibility, because it sure as **** isn't yours.

As for this guy. Cut him off. Get the point across that he shouldn't ever, EVER rely on you. If you feel that bad that only drive him TO or FROM work ONCE a week. It's not your job so doing it even once is a favour he should be thanking you for.

DigitalExile

agreed 100%

MrGeezer, I say thisnot out of disrespect, but you are a grouch.

Why do you even care what people at your place of work say or think? You dont like them anyway; you have said in numerous other threads you dont like "work friends", you dont like talking to people in general, and so forth.

so why do you care?

Isn't the whole point of the special Olympics to make them feel like they did a good job even if they didn't?

Anyway I don't think he knew exactly what he was doing when he "told" you to drive him home. He's got his mind on something else and even a normal person could phrase it that way. Also it seems like you were pretty shady making him think you'd take him home right away, and putting it off. Never the less I wouldn't worry about him telling other people since it doesn't sound like anybody actually listens to him.

If he continues w/ the telling you you're taking him home you should still take him home that time, but tell you won't be able to take him home, and name specific days. I wouldn't recommend cutting him off cold turkey though, just gradually increase the days you can't take him. If he asks why? I'd just reply w/ "personal reasons", but you could tell him the truth or lie which is risky depending on your communication w/ him.

You are in the right since you are not family it should be there problem next time he does it just ignore him or if your like me tell him to f off but that's just me.

I know exactly (almost exaclty) how you feel. I've been used by mentally retarded people before. I know that might sound like a totally dick thing to say, but it's true. Like you said, they may be retarded, but they are not stupid. They learn how to manipulate people to get what they want or need (what happened to you and me). Everyone else knows that you're a nice guy and so they push him off on you. The only thing to do here is become jaded to the fact that he is mentally retarded and that he does need people to help him. You just have to say **** it and barely stay aqcuaintances with him. It's very hard to do and you'll feel like a bad person, but it's the only option. Otherwise, he's like a ball and chain. You will always have that nagging "liability" feeling and you won't be able to enjoy some of the small things in life. It's harsh, but you have to let him down gently and try to become independent from him.

MrGeezer, I say thisnot out of disrespect, but you are a grouch.

Why do you even care what people at your place of work say or think? You dont like them anyway; you have said in numerous other threads you dont like "work friends", you dont like talking to people in general, and so forth.

so why do you care?

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="freek666"]

I don't give a damn if he is mentally retarded or anything, he is not the boss of and you shouldn't be at his beck and call. You gotta work late and he's TELLING you to take him home, tell him "too bad I got work to do, find someone else". Don't give into his ****, like you said, he isn't stupid. Whether or not he understands how much of a nuisance he is being to you is another thing.

Ultrabeatdown55

Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree entirely.

The problem is that this sets a very real potential for my work relationship to get negatively affecdted, based on the fact this man can easily blame me for making him lose the Special Olympics.

This dude lies. And there is a very real potential for other people to BELIEVE anything that he says about me. Because he's mentally retarded and I'm not. I'm one of the few people who actually spends time with the dude, which means that I knowhim better than many others. Others very well may not think him to be capable of lies and manipulation and deceit. They just see him as the nice innocent retarded man that they don't have to deal with since someone else will do that for him.

And then when he loses the Special Olympics and says that it's my fault for hanging around and getting drunk instead of taking him home, who are people going to believe? Me, or a mentally retarded man who seems to be incapable of lying?

This isn't about me and him at all. This is about whether or not I'll become a social pariah through absolutely no fault of my own.

I agree. They are not in the position to blaim him for anything.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I agree. They are not in the position to blaim him for anything.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I agree. They are not in the position to blaim him for anything.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Well actually he should be blamed for not telling the dude he didn't want to drive him home thus giving him time to leave by finding alternate plans. Instead, he delayed for some time to deliberately punish the dude. And considering the dude is mentally challenged...well that wasn't right. A simple no dude. I'm not leaving for several hours and I don't want to take you home would have the correct response. He was under no obligation to give the man a ride. However, he handled it wrong and for that he has to take the blame.

LJS9502_basic

We know from what MrGeezer has mentioned in earlier threads of his about the same issue. In those mentions he didnt assume how his coworkers feel about the mentally ill man. He simply mentioned what they did; not what they think. Which is not an assumption of course.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

We know from what MrGeezer has mentioned in earlier threads of his about the same issue. In those mentions he didnt assume how his coworkers feel about the mentally ill man. He simply mentioned what they did; not what they think. Which is not an assumption of course.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

We know from what MrGeezer has mentioned in earlier threads of his about the same issue. In those mentions he didnt assume how his coworkers feel about the mentally ill man. He simply mentioned what they did; not what they think. Which is not an assumption of course.

Teenaged

Damn I think I have not seen more words in a post. I could not read all of that without making me throw up:?

You are too nice about it. It's pretty hard to tell a Mentally Retarded person that you don't feel like driving them anywhere or doing something with them. Tell him you are not his chauffer, and if anyone says anything to you just tell them that they can drive him wherever he wants to go.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Think about the bolded for a moment and about what I just said about the filter we're getting on motivations and feelings here. He's also mentioned in other threads that his co-workers don't like him.

LJS9502_basic

____________

Well at the position we are, since we cant witness anything, we have to go by his words, at least for what he says that is not likely to be his own take on the matters he stories out for us; while the storying out of matters itself is not that likely to be subjective as the opinion he has of the event that he stories out.

In essence, everyones post in this thread should be read with the added (obvious) "...assuming you are telling the truth".

Well at the position we are, since we cant witness anything, we have to go by his words, at least for what he says that is not likely to be his own take on the matters he stories out for us; while the storying out of matters itself is not that likely to be subjective as the opinion he has of the event that he stories out.

In essence, everyones post in this thread should be read with the added (obvious) "...assuming you are telling the truth".

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Well at the position we are, since we cant witness anything, we have to go by his words, at least for what he says that is not likely to be his own take on the matters he stories out for us; while the storying out of matters itself is not that likely to be subjective as the opinion he has of the event that he stories out.

In essence, everyones post in this thread should be read with the added (obvious) "...assuming you are telling the truth".

LJS9502_basic

For instance even what he told us about what he did could be false or distorted. I dont see how it is only likely for the storying out of other people's actions (in the "story" that is unfold) are to be doubted about.

So in the end, I choose to assume he is telling the truth about all things he says that are not a result of his own opinion.

Imo, either we apply skepticism on everything that he states (incluing his actions) or we just use a criterion like the one I mentioned.

For instance even what he told us about what he did could be false or distorted. I dont see how it is only likely for the storying out of other people's actions (in the "story" that is unfold) are to be doubted about.

So in the end, I choose to assume he is telling the truth about all things he says that are not a result of his own opinion.

Teenaged

The important part of this thread is actually the interactions between Geezer and the mentally challenged man. No one is important to the story. I don't think he has to drive this dude around. I don't think he has to interact with him at all unless it's work related. The only thing that bothered me about this thread was that he deliberatly punished the man instead of straight up telling him he wouldn't take him home. That would have been the correct way to handle this. Not leave him waiting around all night when he may have been able to find another mode of transportation.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Imo, either we apply skepticism on everything that he states (incluing his actions) or we just use a criterion like the one I mentioned.

For instance even what he told us about what he did could be false or distorted. I dont see how it is only likely for the storying out of other people's actions (in the "story" that is unfold) are to be doubted about.

So in the end, I choose to assume he is telling the truth about all things he says that are not a result of his own opinion.

LJS9502_basic

The important part of this thread is actually the interactions between Geezer and the mentally challenged man. No one is important to the story. I don't think he has to drive this dude around. I don't think he has to interact with him at all unless it's work related. The only thing that bothered me about this thread was that he deliberatly punished the man instead of straight up telling him he wouldn't take him home. That would have been the correct way to handle this. Not leave him waiting around all night when he may have been able to find another mode of transportation.

Like I said, assumptions-of-events aside, the events themselves, no matter what people are included, are at the same spot. For all you know he may be "beautifying" his behavior towards the mentally ill man. So in the end, if we are to apply skepticism on the events he stories out (mind you: not his opinion of them) about his co-workers and the mentally ill man, we might as well do it for the events he stories out that have to do with him and the mentally ill man. Or we conventionally assume he is not lying about the events and only disregard his opinion and emotions about said events.

______

And of course obviously he should tell him that he cant drive him home, whether the mentally ill man asked or "demanded".

But there is no reason to not apply it to everything.

Like I said, assumptions-of-events aside, the events themselves, no matter what people are included, are at the same spot. For all you know he may be "beautifying" his behavior towards the mentally ill man. So in the end, if we are to apply skepticism on the events he stories out (mind you: not his opinion of them) about his co-workers and the mentally ill man, we might as well do it for the events he stories out that have to do with him and the mentally ill man. Or we conventionally assume he is not lying about the events and only disregard his opinion and emotions about said events.

______

And of course obviously he should tell him that he cant drive him home, whether the mentally ill man asked or "demanded".

Teenaged

Unless we have observed this behavior for ourselves....it's IS filtered through Geezer and as such based on his opinion.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

But there is no reason to not apply it to everything.

Like I said, assumptions-of-events aside, the events themselves, no matter what people are included, are at the same spot. For all you know he may be "beautifying" his behavior towards the mentally ill man. So in the end, if we are to apply skepticism on the events he stories out (mind you: not his opinion of them) about his co-workers and the mentally ill man, we might as well do it for the events he stories out that have to do with him and the mentally ill man. Or we conventionally assume he is not lying about the events and only disregard his opinion and emotions about said events.

______

And of course obviously he should tell him that he cant drive him home, whether the mentally ill man asked or "demanded".

LJS9502_basic

Unless we have observed this behavior for ourselves....it's IS filtered through Geezer and as such based on his opinion.

Lets take the example of that I gave you: the mentally ill man hosted a party and the co-workers who promised to go (just to not say no to his face) didnt go. From their part they didnt act responsibly towards the mentally ill person, given that they knew his condition. They, like MrGeezer, shouldnt say "yes". Why they said yes, their intentions or emotions doesnt make a difference. Therefore his co-workers are guilty of the same thing MrGeezer did later on. Therefore they not are in the position to blaim/scold him for it, as if they are not guilty of the same thing.

How could the event of the party be filtered by MrGeezer's opinion exactly?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

But there is no reason to not apply it to everything.

Like I said, assumptions-of-events aside, the events themselves, no matter what people are included, are at the same spot. For all you know he may be "beautifying" his behavior towards the mentally ill man. So in the end, if we are to apply skepticism on the events he stories out (mind you: not his opinion of them) about his co-workers and the mentally ill man, we might as well do it for the events he stories out that have to do with him and the mentally ill man. Or we conventionally assume he is not lying about the events and only disregard his opinion and emotions about said events.

______

And of course obviously he should tell him that he cant drive him home, whether the mentally ill man asked or "demanded".

Teenaged

Unless we have observed this behavior for ourselves....it's IS filtered through Geezer and as such based on his opinion.

Lets take the example of that I gave you: the mentally ill man hosted a party and the co-workers who promised to go (just to not say no to his face) didnt go. From their part they didnt act responsibly towards the mentally ill person, given that they knew his condition. They, like MrGeezer, shouldnt say "yes". Why they said yes, their intentions or emotions doesnt make a difference. Therefore his co-workers are guilty of the same thing MrGeezer did later on. Therefore they not are in the position to blaim/scold him for it, as if they are not guilty of the same thing.

How could the event of the party be filtered by MrGeezer's opinion exactly?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]But that doesn't make sense. I'm not saying he's lying about the co workers...but he's not them. He can only observe behavior and make a guess as to the why etc. He doesn't know. And he should certainly be aware of his own actions and thoughts.

Unless we have observed this behavior for ourselves....it's IS filtered through Geezer and as such based on his opinion.

LJS9502_basic

Lets take the example of that I gave you: the mentally ill man hosted a party and the co-workers who promised to go (just to not say no to his face) didnt go. From their part they didnt act responsibly towards the mentally ill person, given that they knew his condition. They, like MrGeezer, shouldnt say "yes". Why they said yes, their intentions or emotions doesnt make a difference. Therefore his co-workers are guilty of the same thing MrGeezer did later on. Therefore they not are in the position to blaim/scold him for it, as if they are not guilty of the same thing.

How could the event of the party be filtered by MrGeezer's opinion exactly?

When you are talking to a mentally ill person, there is no middle ground between a yes and a noo. Meaning, that a mentally ill person will most likely either receive something as a yes or a no. And thats why I mentioned that they didnt act responsibly, considering that the man is mentally ill. You dont go about telling a mentally ill person "maybe I'll drop by", "perhaps I'll spare a few minutes" etc. So even in the case of them not stating for a fact that they are going to attend, that exactly is their fault. And it is MrGeezers fault as well for not being assertive towards that man and being clear towards him. Neither were his co-workers in the possibility you brought up.

Something un-avoidable is believable to have come up to one or two co-workers. But according to MrGeezer (and thats an event, not an opinion) the co-workers werent one or two.

When you are talking to a mentally ill person, there is no middle ground between a yes and a noo. Meaning, that a mentally ill person will most likely either receive something as a yes or a no. And thats why I mentioned that they didnt act responsibly, considering that the man is mentally ill. You dont go about telling a mentally ill person "maybe I'll drop by", "perhaps I'll spare a few minutes" etc. So even in the case of them not stating for a fact that they are going to attend, that exactly is their fault. And it is MrGeezers fault as well for not being assertive towards that man and being clear towards him. Neither were his co-workers in the possibility you brought up.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Something un-avoidable is believable to have come up to one or two co-workers. But according to MrGeezer (and thats an event, not an opinion) the co-workers werent one or two.

When you are talking to a mentally ill person, there is no middle ground between a yes and a noo. Meaning, that a mentally ill person will most likely either receive something as a yes or a no. And thats why I mentioned that they didnt act responsibly, considering that the man is mentally ill. You dont go about telling a mentally ill person "maybe I'll drop by", "perhaps I'll spare a few minutes" etc. So even in the case of them not stating for a fact that they are going to attend, that exactly is their fault. And it is MrGeezers fault as well for not being assertive towards that man and being clear towards him. Neither were his co-workers in the possibility you brought up.

LJS9502_basic

And whether or not the mentally ill man is mistaken to assume that they would come for sure doesnt matter. Because he is mentally ill. And that is expectable from mentally ill people of the type that Geezer has described this man to be. The co-workers ought to know that and be clear to him; either promise or flat-out decline.

That is the same type of criticism we apply to Geezer and his co-workers deserve the same. Thats why they are not in the position to blame him.

I already answered the scenario of them not promising to go for a fact.

And whether or not the mentally ill man is mistaken to assume that they would come for sure doesnt matter. Because he is mentally ill. And that is expectable from mentally ill people of the type that Geezer has described this man to be. The co-workers ought to know that and be clear to him; either promise or flat-out decline.

That is the same type of criticism we apply to Geezer and his co-workers deserve the same. Thats why they are not in the position to blame him.

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I already answered the scenario of them not promising to go for a fact.

And whether or not the mentally ill man is mistaken to assume that they would come for sure doesnt matter. Because he is mentally ill. And that is expectable from mentally ill people of the type that Geezer has described this man to be. The co-workers ought to know that and be clear to him; either promise or flat-out decline.

That is the same type of criticism we apply to Geezer and his co-workers deserve the same. Thats why they are not in the position to blame him.

LJS9502_basic

I am sure Geezer's co-workers knew his situation, no? And therefore should handle him appropriately: either promise to go or flat-out deny. We have two scenarios: they either promised and didnt go or just said "maybe". In both cases they are at fault. If they promised they ought to go and if they said maybe then they shouldnt and should be sincere, like you suggested Geezer should do: be sincere towards the mentally challenged person. Therefore you too realise that mentally challenged people need special handling.

But you are not mentally challenged, are you? Since you are not, then in your example I would expect from you (a person without any mental issues) to not assume x or y.

If you were, if you assumed out of the blue that I would give you 50$ of course its not my fault. The case of Mrgeezer though is not assumptions out of the blue. There was a half-promise from them to go. Its easy for a mentally challenged person to assume they would go for sure or to hope they would go and in case they didnt to feel very sad, more than a non challenged person would be. The co-workers ought to know that and be clear (if they werent).

Fine. Mentally challenged. And yes mentally challenged people dont reason like everyone else. I am sure you have had interactions with mentally challenged people and those people need some certain "handling". Like being sincere to them (if being insincere to them will cause them sadness) and avoid treating them badly.

I am sure Geezer's co-workers knew his situation, no? And therefore should handle him appropriately: either promise to go or flat-out deny. We have two scenarios: they either promised and didnt go or just said "maybe". In both cases they are at fault. If they promised they ought to go and if they said maybe then they shouldnt and should be sincere, like you suggested Geezer should do: be sincere towards the mentally challenged person. Therefore you too realise that mentally challenged people need special handling.

But you are not mentally challenged, are you? Since you are not, then in your example I would expect from you (a person without any mental issues) to not assume x or y.

If you were, if you assumed out of the blue that I would give you 50$ of course its not my fault. The case of Mrgeezer though is not assumptions out of the blue. There was a half-promise from them to go. Its easy for a mentally challenged person to assume they would go for sure or to hope they would go and in case they didnt to feel very sad, more than a non challenged person would be. The co-workers ought to know that and be clear (if they werent).

Teenaged

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

Fine. Mentally challenged. And yes mentally challenged people dont reason like everyone else. I am sure you have had interactions with mentally challenged people and those people need some certain "handling". Like being sincere to them (if being insincere to them will cause them sadness) and avoid treating them badly.

I am sure Geezer's co-workers knew his situation, no? And therefore should handle him appropriately: either promise to go or flat-out deny. We have two scenarios: they either promised and didnt go or just said "maybe". In both cases they are at fault. If they promised they ought to go and if they said maybe then they shouldnt and should be sincere, like you suggested Geezer should do: be sincere towards the mentally challenged person. Therefore you too realise that mentally challenged people need special handling.

But you are not mentally challenged, are you? Since you are not, then in your example I would expect from you (a person without any mental issues) to not assume x or y.

If you were, if you assumed out of the blue that I would give you 50$ of course its not my fault. The case of Mrgeezer though is not assumptions out of the blue. There was a half-promise from them to go. Its easy for a mentally challenged person to assume they would go for sure or to hope they would go and in case they didnt to feel very sad, more than a non challenged person would be. The co-workers ought to know that and be clear (if they werent).

LJS9502_basic

I mentioned earlier, that we, for the sake of the discussion, should assume he is telling the truth about parts of the story that dont constitute opinions, but events.

And like I had told you in that other thread if you were trully skeptical generally, you wouldnt comment at all as to what MrGeezer should do and what not. In fact you shoudnt even place any judgement on him since you dont know the full story. Perhaps, the mentally challenged person actually asked him politely to drive him home and perhaps he wasnt all that pushy towards him. Perhaps, he neglected to tell us that, say, his co-workers actually told MrGeezer to take him suggesting its his responsibility and therefore he felt very pressured. Now what?

[You are doing the exact same thing you did in another thread where a user told his own story. You are applying skepticism only to certain parts of the story without having a consistent criterion for why you do so.

I mentioned earlier, that we, for the sake of the discussion, should assume he is telling the truth about parts of the story that dont constitute opinions, but events.

And like I had told you in that other thread if you were trully skeptical generally, you wouldnt comment at all as to what MrGeezer should do and what not. In fact you shoudnt even place any judgement on him since you dont know the full story. Perhaps, the mentally challenged person actually asked him politely to drive him home and perhaps he wasnt all that pushy towards him. Perhaps, he neglected to tell us that, say, his co-workers actually told MrGeezer to take him suggesting its his responsibility and therefore he felt very pressured. Now what?

Teenaged

I suppose you have heard the saying...three sides to every story.

Maybe I'm just cold, but why is this guy anyone's responsibility? He must have a plan on how to get home if noone is able to give him a ride. I just don't believe someone would signoff on him getting a job if there was a chance he wouldn't be able to get to and from work every day. Though I think you should have just told him "no" straight out, you've done more for this guy than should ever be expected.

As for worrying about your coworkers, I wouldn't. Obviously if they aren't offering to drive him home or showing up to parties they say they'll go to then they don't care about this guy. He might try blalming you for losing the special olympics and I'm sure they'll just shrug and not give it a second thought.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[You are doing the exact same thing you did in another thread where a user told his own story. You are applying skepticism only to certain parts of the story without having a consistent criterion for why you do so.

I mentioned earlier, that we, for the sake of the discussion, should assume he is telling the truth about parts of the story that dont constitute opinions, but events.

And like I had told you in that other thread if you were trully skeptical generally, you wouldnt comment at all as to what MrGeezer should do and what not. In fact you shoudnt even place any judgement on him since you dont know the full story. Perhaps, the mentally challenged person actually asked him politely to drive him home and perhaps he wasnt all that pushy towards him. Perhaps, he neglected to tell us that, say, his co-workers actually told MrGeezer to take him suggesting its his responsibility and therefore he felt very pressured. Now what?

LJS9502_basic

I suppose you have heard the saying...three sides to every story.

But this is not a matter of conclusions. The events are just being trasferred to us. With the narrators conclusions which like I said we do apply skepticism on. But we dont apply skepticism on events selectively. There should be a criterion and a reason why you apply skepticism on the x part of the story and not on the y part. And why the scenarios that you bring up us x and not y.

We, conventionally and for the sake of the discussion (I repeat) assume he is not lying about the events. If we dont, we can apply skepticism to any part of the story. Not selectively and with selective possible scenarios.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I agree. They are not in the position to blaim him for anything.

LJS9502_basic

I think you're in the clear man, this guy really seems to be messing with you.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[You are doing the exact same thing you did in another thread where a user told his own story. You are applying skepticism only to certain parts of the story without having a consistent criterion for why you do so.

I mentioned earlier, that we, for the sake of the discussion, should assume he is telling the truth about parts of the story that dont constitute opinions, but events.

And like I had told you in that other thread if you were trully skeptical generally, you wouldnt comment at all as to what MrGeezer should do and what not. In fact you shoudnt even place any judgement on him since you dont know the full story. Perhaps, the mentally challenged person actually asked him politely to drive him home and perhaps he wasnt all that pushy towards him. Perhaps, he neglected to tell us that, say, his co-workers actually told MrGeezer to take him suggesting its his responsibility and therefore he felt very pressured. Now what?

Teenaged

I suppose you have heard the saying...three sides to every story.

But this is not a matter of conclusions. The events are just being trasferred to us. With the narrators conclusions which like I said we do apply skepticism on. But we dont apply skepticism on events selectively. There should be a criterion and a reason why you apply skepticism on the x part of the story and not on the y part. And why the scenarios that you bring up us x and not y.

We, conventionally and for the sake of the discussion (I repeat) assume he is not lying about the events. If we dont, we can apply skepticism to any part of the story. Not selectively and with selective possible scenarios.