Oh, come now! It assure you, it was only in jest! As indicated by my face. Or did you not see it? Perhaps there was some reason it wouldn't appear on your computer? Maybe you should have that looked at...

As for your lengthy philosophical lecture on truth and all perceptions of that truth (which I overlooked earlier... my apologies...), I must say that I can't quite determine if this Maser fellow is a philosopher of some sort or one of those silly inspirational speakers. Maybe it's a bit of both... At any rate... I do agree with him that truth is objective and perceptions of truth are subjective (hence, "perception"). So, if we were to nitpick, the proper question should be "is it proper to tell another person something which deviates from our own perception of truth to ensure their perception of truth is not threatened, or are we morally obligated (morality being a human construct, and thus also subjective, mind you) to tell that person our perception of truth?" But we're mere laymen, and we use terms in a manner short of proper, such as "lies" and "truth".

But how do we go about applying this philosophy to the original question? Because we are mere mortals, our perceptions of reality undoubtedly fall short of reality as it truly is, especially in matters which we are unable to measure; e.g., the mind, etcetera - incidentally, the matters in question. Therefore, should someone ever ask the question, "Am I a bad person?" there is no objective answer. And their answer may be no nearer to truth than ours. What, then, do we tell them?

As Maser would have us believe, "The accepted definitions of truth are only modifications of the definitions of perception. Truth as a human understanding resides in everyone's heart, and it is there one must search for it. Although we must each be guided by truth as we see it, no one has a right to coerce others to act according to his or her own view of truth. In the end, our "detector of truth" is our inner voice. Thus, I find no magic in the perfection of hindsight; it only points out that I did not listen to my inner voice when it spoke the first time.

"The truth of the human mind is relative and therefore but a perception of that which is True. If our perception of a truth were in fact the Truth, we would find no such thing as a half-truth."

This is where I vehemently disagree with Maser. It's also where I find his message to be contradictory. "Truth as a human understanding resides in everyone's heart, and it is there one must search for it," says Maser. And, by that, he means follow your intuition, intuition as defined by: 1. The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. 2. A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning. But how often are our feelings and instincts influenced by society or emotions or biases or stereotypes or past teachings or mindsets or whatever else? For example, an ex Nam vet knows the world to be filled to the brim with hatred and suffering. When faced with a gruff looking stranger, his intuitive sense leads him to believe this stranger is a threat from which he must protect his loved ones. A pacifist and philosopher whose mind has not been corrupted/enlightened by the heinous brutality of war may intuitively see the kindness in the heart of this gentle, albeit unrefined stranger.

If, as Maser states, the Truth is found in the chambers of the human heart, then this large stranger must both be a dangerous and irredeemable criminal and a gentle giant worthy of our patient understanding, because both of these "truths" are in each of the hearts of those who witness this stranger.

Intuitive sense, or as Maser likes to phrase it, "searching your heart," is the most subjective form of the perception of truth.

Allow me, if you will, to propose an alternative. Maser purports that truth is found in the absence of knowledge. However, truth must correspond with reality. As Thomas Aquinas states, "A judgement is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality." And how do we determine what of our observations correspond most with reality? We test them, and thus gain knowledge about them. We then take that knowledge and use it for useful, or sometimes destructive, purposes.

Is it still a perception of reality, and can we still be wrong? Of course. But we're much less likely to be wrong.

So ... "Am I a bad person?" ... Still don't have an answer. Morals aren't exactly testable. In this case, to be the most fair and consistent, we observe the standards of society - laws, norms, mores, values, etcetera - and compare them with the actions of the person in question.

I'm a bit tired, so I apologize if I got off track. I'll proof read it later. Maybe...