Alan Erskine has been jailed

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:04:01 GMT, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
wrote:

Karen Chuplis wrote:

It's probably one of the Maxson clan.

No. It's not any of the Maxsons.

....Does it matter?


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

In news:OM
om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org
typed:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:04:01 GMT, "Rhonda Lea Kirk"
wrote:

No. It's not any of the Maxsons.

...Does it matter?

It does, a whole lot. Because since stuffie split (if s/he/it
really has) you've ascribed all things evil in s.s.h. to the Maxsons.
There are *way* more twits, simps, kooks, and downright assholes than
just them. :-(
--
Mike
__________________________________________________ ______
"Colorado Ski Country, USA" Come often, Ski hard,
Spend *lots* of money, Then leave as quickly as you can.

OM wrote:
Rhonda Lea Kirk wrote:
Karen Chuplis wrote:

It's probably one of the Maxson clan.

No. It's not any of the Maxsons.

...Does it matter?

It does to me.

On this ng, on usenet, in the world. It matters to me when
the wrong person is blamed for something done by someone
else.

It doesn't matter who I like or who I want/don't want it to
be. Scapegoating is wrong. It's always wrong.

rl

I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item written by
"Rhonda Lea Kirk" on Mon, 14 Jul 2003
08:12:38 -0400, which said:

It doesn't matter who I like or who I want/don't want it to
be. Scapegoating is wrong. It's always wrong.

Moral issues aside, it's wrong because it's worse than ineffective.
It fails to solve the problem by allowing the perp to go free, while
creating another problem by alienating or removing the scapegoat, who
might otherwise be a valuable contributor to your society. It is also
a strong indication that the rules of your society are insufficient to
ensure the society's efficient operation.

Sorry, Rhonda, but you forget that you're talking to scientists and
engineers, here. "Human" issues, such as morality, need to be
expressed in somewhat different terms. This realization was the
inspiration for Law #1 which, while it always draws a smile (and many
comments), has a serious side to it:


---------
Beady's 1st Law of Social Harmonics: "Never let the designer write the user's manual."

Die hard soulmates.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Mike Speegle wrote in message
...

It does, a whole lot. Because since stuffie split (if s/he/it
really has) you've ascribed all things evil in s.s.h. to the Maxsons.
There are *way* more twits, simps, kooks, and downright assholes
than just them. :-(


Scott Hedrick wrote in message
. ..
"Anonymous Sender" wrote in message
acolo.com...

Bon appetit!

Hey, JTM, still hanging around, I see.

Die hard soulmates.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)


Scott Hedrick wrote in message
. ..
"Anonymous Sender" wrote in message
acolo.com...

Bon appetit!

Hey, JTM, still hanging around, I see.


Mike Speegle wrote in message
...

It does, a whole lot. Because since stuffie split (if s/he/it
really has) you've ascribed all things evil in s.s.h. to the Maxsons.
There are *way* more twits, simps, kooks, and downright assholes
than just them. :-(

John Beaderstadt wrote:
I was reading in the bathroom when I ran across an item
written by "Rhonda Lea Kirk" which said:

It doesn't matter who I like or who I want/don't want it
to be. Scapegoating is wrong. It's always wrong.

Moral issues aside, it's wrong because it's worse than
ineffective. It fails to solve the problem by allowing the
perp to go free, while creating another problem by
alienating or removing the scapegoat, who might
otherwise be a valuable contributor to your society.
It is also a strong indication that the rules of your
society are insufficient to ensure the society's
efficient operation.

I see it as a practical issue.

My daughter spent four months in jail for something she did
not do. She had just turned 18 when the incident leading to
her arrest occurred. She was blamed based on stereotyping of
the worst sort and lazy police work--numbers count these
days, it doesn't really matter who gets punished as long as
someone does. It may be that a jury would have believed
her--there was plenty of evidence of her innocence (and
stupidity, but that's another story)--but the risk of a
guilty verdict and 10 years in state prison was too much for
her to handle, and she took the plea agreement that was
offered.

No moral issue there that I can see.

Sorry, Rhonda, but you forget that you're talking to
scientists and engineers, here.

Using only the majority of the posts here as my guide, it's
a difficult concept to hold onto.

"Human" issues, such as morality, need
to be expressed in somewhat different terms.

Are the terms expressed above enough different to explain my
perspective on this?