One of the CKIA at work regularly disputes people's accounts of their own lives. I swear one day, someone is going to lose it on this guy.
A couple years ago I listened to Keith Richard's autobiography on cds (I admit, I got it in that media because Johnny Depp reads part of it and so does Keith himself.) Well in the book he talks about his past drug use and that he finally got clean back in the 70's. Of the hard stuff anyway like heroin and coke, he might still smoke pot, I'm not sure. He also speaks of how he used to get clean by going cold turkey.
Now there's been rumors that he had all his blood replaced in order to get clean, rumors that Keith debunks in his memoir and I was telling a former friend about this because he was a classic rock lover too and liked the Stones.
"No that's not true! He did he did do that!"
"Nope, he got clean simply by going cold turkey. Every time. The rumor about his blood being replaced is just that, a rumor."
"But it IS true, I know it!"
"Did you listen to the full book?"
"No, I don't have to, I know it!"
So apparently the guy thinks he knows Keith Richard's life better than I do. And the guy's only a year and a half older than I am.
Even more impressive, he knows Keith Richard's life better than Keith Richards does.
The problem with this CKIA is that he's largely led a rather parochial life in a small midwestern town and has had no curiosity about lives and experiences different from his own... in large part because he's fallen prey to that all-too-common human hubris of assuming that his own life and experiences are universal. So when someone -- like me -- had an experience that happens to be different from his own and relates it, he immediately shakes his head and says in this very SMUG way, "That didn't happen. Stop lying. It didn't happen." For example, he insists that bagels were only invented in the early 1990s because that was the first time he had one. He also insists that Times Square in NYC was never full of hookers, sex shops and drug dealers because the first time he went -- a few years ago -- the place did not look like that so therefore it never had and those of us who were relating stories of the 'real' Times Square in our younger days were lying.
That is insanely rude. I find it hugely insulting to be called a liar and would find it difficult to hold my temper around such a donkey's behind. Also, something like bagels existing before the 1990s is easily proven so how does he cope with people showing him evidence?
Honestly, I'm slightly surprised that no-one ever has lost it at him.
When someone shows him evidence, he either shrugs or pretends the conversation never happened. In other words, he denies that he was wrong.
And yes, it is hugely insulting to be called a liar. Especially when the topic in question is (1) your own life and (2) easily verifiable such as bagels or Times Square. HUGELY. On several occasions I have looked at him and said, "So, you're saying I'm a liar?" He then responds, "Wellll... I'd hate to say that, but you're not telling the truth."
I have on more than one occasion told him to leave my office. If we are in some other location, I will walk away from him. I only interact with him when I cannot avoid it.
I really have to wonder not if he's ever gotten a shot in the nose, but how often. Especially since he used to be on the city council.