Because I'm truly curious as to the thoughts on this...
Copy and paste from prior thread...
On a thread diverting note...
The Illinois senator also chided McCain and Bush for "saying no to America's farmers and ranchers, no to energy independence, no to the environment, and no to millions of hungry people."
How is this any different than anything else you here from other politicians? While I have not read the bill... I find it hard to believe that opposition to it means you hate the American farmer and you want people to be hungry...
After reading the statement on his website--I like the emphasis on assisting family farms over 'large agribusinesses,' and reviews of discrimination claims.
I see your point on apologies, And with good healthy people that can work. But once the apology is given one loses all control over how it will be used. And that can include unjustly, disproportionately, and legally. Which is a problem.
In this case though, how can an apology be taken at face value? Most of the time we can say, Wow, I never meant for that to happen/to hurt you so. This case? Yes, I meant to hurt your child. I went to great effort to cause her pain and trauma. I meant to conceal who I was as I did so. I'm just sorry that I got caught. Maybe I am sorry she killed herself maybe I'm not. Either way I will say so because it may help me. Sincerity? Doubtful.
The legal issue is another matter. The article quotes clauses that may be roughly translated to match earlier legal intentions. They boil down to rules about misrepresentation, libel/slander, etc. And active damage to a family. So - legal case deluxe. Both the site and family should go for both real and punitive damages. Criminal? No. Sigh.
Darlings, where to start? Sometimes I feel as though I have lived a thousand lives in this one, dewy and unlined though my complexion may be. To Tell All may be to intimidate; thus I maintain, at most times, a discreet reserve. But here I share my musings, perhaps revealing the secret to my exquisite poise and charm.
5 comments:
Because I'm truly curious as to the thoughts on this...
Copy and paste from prior thread...
On a thread diverting note...
The Illinois senator also chided McCain and Bush for "saying no to America's farmers and ranchers, no to energy independence, no to the environment, and no to millions of hungry people."
How is this any different than anything else you here from other politicians?
While I have not read the bill... I find it hard to believe that opposition to it means you hate the American farmer and you want people to be hungry...
I'm not familiar with the context of that statement, so I'm not qualified to comment.
After reading the statement on his website--I like the emphasis on assisting family farms over 'large agribusinesses,' and reviews of discrimination claims.
And nobody can accuse the Bush administration of prioritizing either the environment or energy independence.
I see your point on apologies, And with good healthy people that can work. But once the apology is given one loses all control over how it will be used. And that can include unjustly, disproportionately, and legally. Which is a problem.
In this case though, how can an apology be taken at face value? Most of the time we can say, Wow, I never meant for that to happen/to hurt you so. This case? Yes, I meant to hurt your child. I went to great effort to cause her pain and trauma. I meant to conceal who I was as I did so. I'm just sorry that I got caught. Maybe I am sorry she killed herself maybe I'm not. Either way I will say so because it may help me. Sincerity? Doubtful.
The legal issue is another matter. The article quotes clauses that may be roughly translated to match earlier legal intentions. They boil down to rules about misrepresentation, libel/slander, etc. And active damage to a family. So - legal case deluxe. Both the site and family should go for both real and punitive damages. Criminal? No. Sigh.
Cattails
Post a Comment