The thing I'm measuring here is not, actually, the distance traveled in the audience towards or away from omniscience. It's something else.

Something perplexes me about the view you describe, and it's this:

What is the point?

That is to say: You say lying is bad. You describe a certain, specifically circumscribed, view of what does and does not count as lying. The set of conditions and properties that define lying (which is bad) vs. things that don't count as lies, in your view, are not obvious to others (as evidenced by this thread and other similar ones), though of course it does seem that you yourself have a clear idea of what counts as what.

So my question is: what is the point of defining this specific set of things as "lying, which is bad"? Or, to put it another way: what's the unifying principle? What is the rule that generated this distribution? What's the underlying function?