there is no neutrality

[Ancalagon]

very thought provoking piece:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/09/all-in.html

All In
| posted by Melissa McEwan | Thursday, September 20, 2007 | permalink |

Jay in Oregon linked to a story yesterday in comments that is truly one of the worst things I've ever read. It happened in Hartlepool, England—but it could have happened on just about any street in just about any town in the UK, or the US, which is part of what makes it so terrible.

Christine Lakinski, a 50-year-old physically and mentally disabled woman, was returning home with some parcels when she fell ill and stumbled into her doorway, losing consciousness. One of her neighbors, 27-year-old Anthony Anderson, and two of his mates, noticed her lying there; Anderson first kicked her feet to try to rouse her, then dumped a bucket of water on her. When she still failed to respond, he urinated on her and covered her in shaving foam—all of which was captured on a mobile phone. On the video, Anderson is heard to shout "This is YouTube material!" as he degrades Lakinski while she slowly dies of pancreatic failure. This bit of vile revelry attracts a crowd, all of whom "were said to have laughed at his actions."

Anderson, who has pleaded guilty to "outraging public decency," will be sentenced next month. Prosecutor Lynne Dalton, who recommended an enhanced sentence at yesterday's hearing, explained: "Although his actions did not contribute to her death it was appalling behaviour that robbed her of any dignity in the last hours of her life."

Lakinski's brother Mark said: "We will await the outcome and just hope he gets what he deserves." And what does Anderson deserve? A fate no civilized society would ever give him. There are laws designed to preserve his dignity, if he yet retains any, and to spare him from cruel and unusual treatment, though he did not extend his victim the same courtesy.

At least he will go to prison. He will be punished for his brutally callous victimization of Christine Lakinski. That is certain. Even if it is unthinkably inadequate, it is certain.

But what of those who stopped and stared and laughed and cheered, or who did nothing at all, as Anderson kicked and doused his unconscious victim slumped in her own front doorway, announced "I'm just going to go and piss on her" and did, casually walked back to his house to collect a tin of shaving foam which he used to cover her "from head to foot" before finally abandoning her to the July afternoon? What of them? What do they deserve?

And what of Anderson's parents, who maybe didn't care enough for him or didn't teach him to care about others or knocked him around and made him hard? Or peers who bulled him? Teachers who ignored him, bosses who humiliated him, girlfriends who hurt him, friends who betrayed him? What of the people who contributed in big and small ways to making Anderson who he was on that day, a soulless beast with no regard for decency, devoid of the faintest hint of humanity? What of them? What do they deserve?

And what of the people who conveyed to Anderson his privilege, those same parents, peers, teachers, lovers, friends, who honored and rewarded his maleness, his abledness? What of the people who write the stories and create the images and shoot the films and sing the songs and make the laws and design the world in every conceivable way to privilege male over female and able-bodied over disabled, who endowed Anderson with the profoundly tragic sense of entitlement that gave him claim over another person in so many ways that he felt no compunction to use her as a toy and a toilet? What of them? What do they deserve?

And what of the people who consume those images and messages, and internalize their own privilege, their own maleness or abledness, their own whiteness or straightness or cisgenderedness or thinness or wealth, who shell out dollar after dollar in pursuit of the things, the beautiful things, that reassure them how wonderful and superior and privileged they are? Who feed the machine that necessarily dehumanizes some people in the process of turning mere mortals into superheroes? What of them? What do they deserve?

And what of the people who take advantage of the intrinsically or comparatively oppressed, the marginalized, the cast-aside and overlooked and unappreciated, who subject them to minor incidents of indignity—a passing cruelty, a lingering if insignificant neglect, an embarrassment or mockery or exposure—who compare their iniquities against grievous offenses like Anderson's and see not an uncomfortable proximity, but a reassuring distance? What of them? What do they deserve?

And what of the people who bear witness to these random acts of unkindness, who know the right thing to do but are simply not brave enough to do it? What of the people who keep quiet, even as their conscience groans and their cheeks burn with the shame of their steadfast silence, who don't speak up who don't say stop who don't step in who don't move a muscle unless it's to turn away? What of the people who just don't want to get involved, who maybe even feel a sick and desperate relief that it's someone else, it isn't them, it isn't me oh thank god it isn't me who's being picked on pissed off put down? What of them? What of me? Oh dear god, what do I deserve for the moments I have failed, for the times my pathetic, spineless silence has conveyed a tacit approval of the actions of a bully, for letting my weakness become his strength?

I make a difference in this world, for good or ill. There is no neutral. There is no Switzerland. There is only saying no to the indignities one human visits upon another—prejudice, hatred, humiliation and pain—or saying yes. And silence, the craven averting of one's gaze so the offense may take place out of view, is not a no. It is not ambiguous. It is a yes. Yes, go ahead, just don't do it to me. It is a permission, and a plea. I'll sacrifice her if you'll let me on my merry way. We routinely cede our expectations of goodness for guarantees of safety, but only our own, and we can no longer fool ourselves that men like Anthony Anderson are aberrations; they are, in the void of unyielding solidarity our self-interest has left, inevitabilities.

There is no neutral. You're in or you're fucking out.

I'm all in.

[Bagpuss]

There is that and then on the other side you have stories of people that do intervene in such situations and end up dead, or seriously injured.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6976459.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/6991945.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/5029260.stm

[The Winslow]

But what of those who stopped and stared and laughed and cheered, or who did nothing at all, as Anderson kicked and doused his unconscious victim slumped in her own front doorway, announced "I'm just going to go and piss on her" and did, casually walked back to his house to collect a tin of shaving foam which he used to cover her "from head to foot" before finally abandoning her to the July afternoon? What of them? What do they deserve?

In French law, they'd all face jail time too, up to five years plus a fine of up to 100 000 €. Non-assistance à personne en danger ("no assistance to endangered person") is a crime. (Cf. Art. 223-6 of the French Code Civil.)

[Andreas]

In French law, they'd all face jail time too, up to five years plus a fine of up to 100 000 €. Non-assistance à personne en danger ("no assistance to endangered person") is a crime. (Cf. Art. 223-6 of the French Code Civil.)

Jup, same here in germany...

Section 323c Failure to Render Assistance

Whoever does not render assistance during accidents or common danger or need, although it is required and can be expected of him under the circumstances and, especially, is possible without substantial danger to himself and without violation of other important duties, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than one year or a fine.

[Bagpuss]

Since people are certainly capable of murder intervention in this case or any other for that matter, then "without substantial danger to himself" seems a general get out for this law.

[The Winslow]

Since people are certainly capable of murder intervention in this case or any other for that matter, then "without substantial danger to himself" seems a general get out for this law.
I quote:
all of which was captured on a mobile phone

People have used cell phones at visibly no danger to themselves. One of these jackasses could have used a cellphone to call 911, and that would have been at least an attempt to help.

This kind of law do not ask you to be Superman and to single-handedly defeat the badguys (without inflicting them any lasting harm) and to perform emergency field medecine on the victim. They ask you to do something other than running away scarred or -- worse -- cheering the criminals.

[Hatter]

Since people are certainly capable of murder intervention in this case or any other for that matter, then "without substantial danger to himself" seems a general get out for this law.

They'd have a hard time proving danger to themselves in the case of not assisting an unconscious and dying person in a safe place. It's clear that the intent is to not force people to confront armed murderers or run into burning buildings.

[Northcott]

Before I rant, I'd like to make clear how much that wretched little piece of shit disgusts me. This woman seems to be labouring under the illusion that he's not going to be punished beyond an easy stretch in jail. My hunch is that in jail there'll be at least a couple hard lads who'll take a dim view of somebody this cowardly and weak. They may as well tattoo "prey" on his forehead as he walks in. Do a brutal crime like armed robbery, murder, or assault? You're hardcore and probably mostly left alone. Victimize the helpless? You're looked at as a weak, sadistic thing, and may well be made a victim yourself.

Now, there's no guarantees of this, but one can hope. My hunch is that this lad's in for a bit of pain and degredation himself. One can only hope that the watching crowd are having their guts eaten out with relentless guilt for their part in this monstrous debacle.

Now on to the blog author:

And what of Anderson's parents, who maybe didn't care enough for him or didn't teach him to care about others or knocked him around and made him hard? Or peers who bulled him? Teachers who ignored him, bosses who humiliated him, girlfriends who hurt him, friends who betrayed him? What of the people who contributed in big and small ways to making Anderson who he was on that day, a soulless beast with no regard for decency, devoid of the faintest hint of humanity? What of them? What do they deserve?

And what of the people who conveyed to Anderson his privilege, those same parents, peers, teachers, lovers, friends, who honored and rewarded his maleness, his abledness? What of the people who write the stories and create the images and shoot the films and sing the songs and make the laws and design the world in every conceivable way to privilege male over female and able-bodied over disabled, who endowed Anderson with the profoundly tragic sense of entitlement that gave him claim over another person in so many ways that he felt no compunction to use her as a toy and a toilet? What of them? What do they deserve?

Fuck. Off.

Fuck off with that ultra PC, hand-holding, mamby-pamby bullshit. "What about the people who made him this way? What if his parents were too hard? What if they were too permissive?" Fuck. Off.

What if his parents were just fine, and this self-centered little prick is just a bad seed? By all accounts Jeffrey Dahmer's parents were nice folks who raised their kid right -- he was still a monster. Try this one: What if this black-hearted, soulless little bastard simply chose to be the way he is? What if he simply doesn't care about other people, and his only regret is that he was caught? What about the nonsensical trend of society that attempts to blame the actions of an individual on the world around them, instead of looking at notions of personal accountability?

Abuse is not justification for abusing. Pain is not justification for inflicting pain on others.

[Xavier Lang]

In French law, they'd all face jail time too, up to five years plus a fine of up to 100 000 €. Non-assistance à personne en danger ("no assistance to endangered person") is a crime. (Cf. Art. 223-6 of the French Code Civil.)

Andreas, my question is to you as well. It's fine and dandy to have such a law, is it ever used? Can you imagine how difficult it would be to figure out who was responsible and charge them?

I would guess they would be better off organizing some sort of community service project in that area and see how many people would, out of guilt, come help out.

[Andreas]

Andreas, my question is to you as well. It's fine and dandy to have such a law, is it ever used? Can you imagine how difficult it would be to figure out who was responsible and charge them?

I would guess they would be better off organizing some sort of community service project in that area and see how many people would, out of guilt, come help out.

Well, as far as i know, there where about ~70 accused in germany in 2005 that where convicted for it.
It is also a law that is sometimes used to get bystanders to testify against the main-offender (e.g. a gang of 7 teens beat a homeless person, 4 suspects get the main charges, the other are charged with "Failure to Render Assistance" to the victim so they can´t say: "Well, we are inocent. We just happened to be nearby").

But these charges are often dropped if they testify against the main suspects.

[The Winslow]

Fuck off with that ultra PC, hand-holding, mamby-pamby bullshit. "What about the people who made him this way? What if his parents were too hard? What if they were too permissive?" Fuck. Off.
:D I always want to retort to people using such logic "ah, but what about the parents' parents? Maybe if the parents were too permissive or too hard, it was because of their own parents. But let's not blame them, either, because of their own parents, who themselves probably had a difficult childhood, so..."

Thanks to copy and paste, it's possible to conclude with something like "And I wouldn't blame the parents' parents' parents' parents' parents' parents' <etc. on several lines> because that's the fault of their own parents, Adam & Eve, who paid too much attention to animals; proving in the end that this disaster should only be blamed on PETA."

[Northcott]

You managed to trace that all back to PETA. That's impressive on an epic scale.

I'm so swiping that. :D

[Ancalagon]

Before I rant, I'd like to make clear how much that wretched little piece of shit disgusts me. This woman seems to be labouring under the illusion that he's not going to be punished beyond an easy stretch in jail. My hunch is that in jail there'll be at least a couple hard lads who'll take a dim view of somebody this cowardly and weak. They may as well tattoo "prey" on his forehead as he walks in. Do a brutal crime like armed robbery, murder, or assault? You're hardcore and probably mostly left alone. Victimize the helpless? You're looked at as a weak, sadistic thing, and may well be made a victim yourself.

Now, there's no guarantees of this, but one can hope. My hunch is that this lad's in for a bit of pain and degredation himself. One can only hope that the watching crowd are having their guts eaten out with relentless guilt for their part in this monstrous debacle.

Now on to the blog author:



Fuck. Off.

Fuck off with that ultra PC, hand-holding, mamby-pamby bullshit. "What about the people who made him this way? What if his parents were too hard? What if they were too permissive?" Fuck. Off.

What if his parents were just fine, and this self-centered little prick is just a bad seed? By all accounts Jeffrey Dahmer's parents were nice folks who raised their kid right -- he was still a monster. Try this one: What if this black-hearted, soulless little bastard simply chose to be the way he is? What if he simply doesn't care about other people, and his only regret is that he was caught? What about the nonsensical trend of society that attempts to blame the actions of an individual on the world around them, instead of looking at notions of personal accountability?

Abuse is not justification for abusing. Pain is not justification for inflicting pain on others.

Hmmm

I didn't see it as "oh it's not his fault, he was abused!" crap, rather a "your actions can have long lasting consequences". Ie actions ripple through other people - both good and bad actions. She's not absolving him, she's saying that other people did wrong too.

[Edena_of_Neith]

(looks sad)

In my opinion, people have a choice in situations like this one: to be nice people or to be cruel people.
Unfortunately, all too often people choose to be cruel.

There is a reason the Romans had their arena, with people being eaten by lions and killing each other in gladiatorial matches.
Do you think we have changed as a race since then? Look at your evidence. We have not.

But people can choose to be friendly and nice. They can choose to be good people. It is up to them.

(looks more sad)

We seem to be entering a time, an era, in which cruelty and madness are going to dominate human thinking and politics alike. What the Chinese would call Interesting Times. And with nuclear weapons to spice things up.
Not so good.

[doc]

The other problem thats not being addressed(other then why this guy wasn't aborted and his father sterelized) is the current YouTube/ 30 seconds of fame Phenome. Dumb asses look for ways to degrade themselves, animals and other people so they can get more hits on YouTube.

[Brynja]

And what of Anderson's parents, who maybe didn't care enough for him or didn't teach him to care about others or knocked him around and made him hard? Or peers who bulled him? Teachers who ignored him, bosses who humiliated him, girlfriends who hurt him, friends who betrayed him? What of the people who contributed in big and small ways to making Anderson who he was on that day, a soulless beast with no regard for decency, devoid of the faintest hint of humanity? What of them? What do they deserve?





This is what Northcott means Anc, I think.

In a nutshell the little motherfuck lacks the ability to take personal responsiblity in the matter. And the author by even begging these questions is pandering to it.

[Northcott]

This is what Northcott means Anc, I think.

In a nutshell the little motherfuck lacks the ability to take personal responsiblity in the matter. And the author by even begging these questions is pandering to it.

That's exactly it.

The author's point may be that our actions have long-lasting consequences -- but using a snarky tone of voice on a McDonald's clerk doesn't make the wage-slave go out and strangle puppies unless she's already a little monster inside.

We make choices about what we do. Some people make rotten choices more often than not. Some are Hell to be around. This does nothing to absolve the actions of an individual, nor does it make blame for the behaviour of that individual something shareable with those who have perhaps wronged them in the past -- which is exactly what those questions postulate. He's guilty: but what about this long list of people who were possibly mean to him?

My response is (and no vitriol directed at you, Anc): So the fuck what? Who fucking cares?

His poppa beat his bitch ass with a leather strap? Who fucking cares? I probably would if he hadn't pissed on a woman while she lay there dying. By posing the question of "where is the responsibility of those who treated him badly and made him what he is?", I answer "he chose to be what he is". Unless he was specifically beaten, broken, and trained to behave in a sociopathic manner, I'd say the conditions of his past are irrelevant to this kind of a crime. It wasn't a momentary act of rage, an act of unthinking passion, a flashpoint where reason was blinded by overwhelming emotion -- he made the deliberate and methodical choice to utterly humiliate another human being without bothering to see if she was in need of aid. Others watched.

I ain't Christian, but really: Damn them all to Hell.

Posing those questions indicates that there may be people to blame beyond those involved. Shared blame is reduced blame. I don't see there being any reason to suggest that these people should be unaccountable for this wretched depth of behaviour.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think it's an indication of how far my political views have changed since I was a teenager that I would now wholeheartedly support a duty to render assistance law.

One of the fundamental principles of the common law is that you don't have to render assistance, that an commission is not a wrong, unless you've somehow entered into a duty with the person in need (e.g. if you threw them in the lake, you have a duty to stop them drowning). I remember when I learned this in law school it seemed perfectly sensible and even admirable.

Now I do think we owe each other a duty to help a stranger in need.

As for the PC thing, I must say I took it as a "in addition to" rather than an "instead of". Of course the shit stain deserves to be punished. The fact that he may have become a shit stain because of bad teaching or whatever doesn't lessen the need to punish him. But it does draw attention to a problem that might need to be fixed as well.

[Pigs in Space]

Here's an odd thought:
I'd be scared to step in, in a country where it is possible the guy can have a gun on him. I'd do something about it in Australia though.

Abuse is not justification for abusing. Pain is not justification for inflicting pain on others.

It is however a fact that some people who have suffered abuse go on to perpetrate it themselves. If you are looking for a "why" then statistics will show this is often the case.

[Varaj]

Abuse is not justification for abusing. Pain is not justification for inflicting pain on others.

As was pointed out it is not a justification but is more of a why. Often it is worth considering why so we can try to make our world a better place.

[PWD]

As was pointed out it is not a justification but is more of a why. Often it is worth considering why so we can try to make our world a better place.

Exactly. Find those who have been abused, and eliminate them before they strike! ;)

[Varaj]

Exactly. Find those who have been abused, and eliminate them before they strike! ;)

At the very least keep them from having kids. :tongue:

[Ancalagon]

Posing those questions indicates that there may be people to blame beyond those involved. Shared blame is reduced blame. I don't see there being any reason to suggest that these people should be unaccountable for this wretched depth of behaviour.

Shared blame is reduced blame? That's a fallacy, and I'm not sure the author is endorsing it at all. If you and I gang up to murder someone, should we only get half the jail sentence because we share the blame? I don't think the judge or society sees it that way...

I totally understand your disgust at the fallacy, but I think one CAN say that "this guy killed women because he was abused by his mother" WITHOUT removing any blame from the guy. It's just a reason why it happened, NOT an excuse. The blame is not shared between the mother and son, rather there is now more blame, and this extra blame should be heaped at the mother.

[Northcott]

As was pointed out it is not a justification but is more of a why. Often it is worth considering why so we can try to make our world a better place.

I'm all for exploring the why. 'Why' tends to lead to specific examinations, however, and that's far from the impression I was left with in reading her piece. What I did see was a lot of prototypical excuses. If the scope of blame needs to be widened in this case -- and in my opinion it does -- it should be made to look upon those who simply stood by and watched.

Very likely this is born from my high level of disgust at the perpetrator, the crowd, and combining with my disgust of hand-wringing nonsense that abdicates personal responsibility for shared blame. I don't think I'm the only one to see that in her article, though. Simply the most incensed by it. No surprise there. :)

Shared blame is reduced blame? That's a fallacy, and I'm not sure the author is endorsing it at all. If you and I gang up to murder someone, should we only get half the jail sentence because we share the blame? I don't think the judge or society sees it that way...

I totally understand your disgust at the fallacy, but I think one CAN say that "this guy killed women because he was abused by his mother" WITHOUT removing any blame from the guy. It's just a reason why it happened, NOT an excuse. The blame is not shared between the mother and son, rather there is now more blame, and this extra blame should be heaped at the mother.

Anc, if it really were a fallacy we wouldn't have copious examples of court cases where sentences for henious crimes were reduced because of the perpetrator's past status as a victim. How often do court cases come up where defense lawyers try to paint their client as a victim him or herself? This tactic is used for a reason. Share the blame, reduce the blame. Blame is not an infinite source; when you spread it around, you reduce the focus upon the origin point.

Your example of co-conspirators in a murder is unfitting. We're not talking about direct hands in a matter, but about the notion of indirect and marginally connected actions creating a sequence of shared blame.

[Hatter]

I don't think examining the source of sociopathic behavior is intended to excuse that behavior, although many a defense lawyer has tried that hand.

[Northcott]

I don't think examining the source of sociopathic behavior is intended to excuse that behavior, although many a defense lawyer has tried that hand.


That raises an interesting question: Whether or not that is the intent of the questioning, does the questioning have that direct effect?

[Freedom Canadian]

There is no neutral. You're in or you're fucking out.

I'm all in.

I'll tell that bitch the same thing I told Bush when he said the same thing: "Then I'm out."

There is ALWAYS a neutral. Not only that, but most people are neutral most of their lives. You aren't going to go out of your way to help everyone you meet, there isn't enough time to do it all.

I try to live my life by following a type of ethical neutrality - I take responsibility for my actions and I refuse to create problems for others. But at the same time, I'm not out to change the world for the better either. Life's too short to take everybody's problems on your shoulders.

If I'm a convenience store clerk and this kid buys his cigarettes from me, I should go all "The Littlest Hobo" on him and solve all his problems because, according to this woman, "There is no neutral". Well, fuck that. :)

[Snatch]

I'll tell that bitch the same thing I told Bush when he said the same thing: "Then I'm out."

There is ALWAYS a neutral. Not only that, but most people are neutral most of their lives. You aren't going to go out of your way to help everyone you meet, there isn't enough time to do it all.

I try to live my life by following a type of ethical neutrality - I take responsibility for my actions and I refuse to create problems for others. But at the same time, I'm not out to change the world for the better either. Life's too short to take everybody's problems on your shoulders.

If I'm a convenience store clerk and this kid buys his cigarettes from me, I should go all "The Littlest Hobo" on him and solve all his problems because, according to this woman, "There is no neutral". Well, fuck that. :)

So your neutral with good tendencies?

[The Winslow]

There is ALWAYS a neutral. Not only that, but most people are neutral most of their lives. You aren't going to go out of your way to help everyone you meet, there isn't enough time to do it all.

In my opinion it's not a question of going out of your way. It's just a question of doing the right thing when your way put you at the wrong time at the wrong place.

[Northcott]

So your neutral with good tendencies?

Dude? Look at his avatar. He's a fuckin' druid fer chrissakes! Dresses in green and brown, and runs around as a beaver. He's True Neutral.

[Brynja]

As was pointed out it is not a justification but is more of a why. Often it is worth considering why so we can try to make our world a better place.


I agree wholly here but I feel the application of the sentiment is where this concept jumps the tracks. Too many people use it as a way to skate over their responsibilities rather than the invitation for reflection that it truly is.

[Pigs in Space]

I'll tell that bitch the same thing I told Bush when he said the same thing: "Then I'm out."

There is ALWAYS a neutral. Not only that, but most people are neutral most of their lives. You aren't going to go out of your way to help everyone you meet, there isn't enough time to do it all.

I try to live my life by following a type of ethical neutrality - I take responsibility for my actions and I refuse to create problems for others. But at the same time, I'm not out to change the world for the better either. Life's too short to take everybody's problems on your shoulders.

If I'm a convenience store clerk and this kid buys his cigarettes from me, I should go all "The Littlest Hobo" on him and solve all his problems because, according to this woman, "There is no neutral". Well, fuck that. :)

Maybe you could do just one good deed per day? Then you'd have time and you'd be at least on the right side of neutral. Try, recycling, or petting kittens, or shooting pigeons, or not urinating on hobo's. Just walk on by.


In my case I am dutifully not strangling my coworkers, although I am unsure if this is contributing to the good of society.

[Freedom Canadian]

In my opinion it's not a question of going out of your way. It's just a question of doing the right thing when your way put you at the wrong time at the wrong place.

Well, if you see someone dying in a pool of blood and you have a phone and you don't call 911, that's not neutrality. That's evil.

That's what the article starts as, with the example and everything, but then it wanders off until the author talks about assigning blame to that guy's dogs for his sins or whatever. Pfff, bullshit. :)

Dude? Look at his avatar. He's a fuckin' druid fer chrissakes! Dresses in green and brown, and runs around as a beaver. He's True Neutral.

LOL

Touché.

Maybe you could do just one good deed per day? Then you'd have time and you'd be at least on the right side of neutral. Try, recycling, or petting kittens, or shooting pigeons, or not urinating on hobo's. Just walk on by.


In my case I am dutifully not strangling my coworkers, although I am unsure if this is contributing to the good of society.

You know, for me recycling is just throwing a can in this waste basket instead
of that waste basket. It's hardly a good deed. ;)

In any case, most people do more than one thing each day that negatively impacts someone else, so they'll need to do a lot more than one good thing to reach neutrality. :lol:

[Northcott]

That's what the article starts as, with the example and everything, but then it wanders off until the author talks about assigning blame to that guy's dogs for his sins or whatever. Pfff, bullshit. :)

I knew we'd eventually find something to agree upon! :D

[The Winslow]

That's what the article starts as, with the example and everything, but then it wanders off until the author talks about assigning blame to that guy's dogs for his sins or whatever. Pfff, bullshit. :)

Yeah, well, who let you think I'd read the article long enough to arrive to the bullshit part? :tongue: