From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/24/02-09:42:51 PM Z
On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, garimo wrote:
> Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence.
> Gossip and reports in the press do not equal evidence.
Garimo, I prefer to think this is not your best self... I don't know what
you read, but I do not read gossip. As for not crediting "reports in the
press," where pray tell do you get your information? By direct hotline
from President Bush --- or ------- ????
Lacking status as, or personal connection to, a Special Agent or Higher
Authority, I feel obliged to settle for "news reports" and so might you,
(unless you're reading the National Enquirer). Nor do I feel I need
"extraordinary evidence" before taking a report under advisement. The
alternative is life in a bubble.
Which may be why you're so far off the mark. The "claim" I made was by no
means extraordinary, but rather, sadly, commonplace. Not to mention that
you put the cart before the horse -- "extraordinary evidence" before any
statement? !!! Meaning -- oops -- nobody can say anything !
But this, while amusing enough, is essentially beside the point. The point
is that if I -- or anyone-- cannot offer relevant information in good
faith and a civil manner, presumably the purpose of this list, without a
seething sneering denunciation, discussion will cease. I stated my
understanding and my own intentions, as simply, briefly, and neutrally as
possible.. Was it guilty conscience made you jump up and down ? (You
protested WAY too MUCH.)
I myself don't care if you trade with the devil him or herself -- that's
your problem -- but I do care if you take it upon yourself to stifle my
commentary or that of good-faith others. Having grown accustomed to flak
from the flak prone around here, I'm not especially intimidated (tho
annoyed that you're wasting my time to explain the obvious). But a fellow
photographer did hastily withdraw with a public PROMISE to NEVER comment
again. Are you proud of that?
(Which is to say, if you're going to play kill-the-messenger, you're
likely to run out of messages.)
> So far in my lifetime the opportunity to choose or not to choose
> crossing a picket line or buying products from terrorists fronts hasn't
> come up. Have these things been much of a problem to you?
Even if true, what's that got to do with anything ? (Except that the
irrelevant reply is a favored form of verbal argument.) Of course your
performance this weekend leads me to conclude that you have been wilfully
blind or in denial about many choices. But that again is your problem, not
mine. Whether you have a choice daily or once in a lifetime, a moral
choice was latent in the circumstances at hand. If you have a problem with
that -- that's your problem.
For the record, however, I find moral choices are constant, but much less
a *problem* than an opportunity... And I do the best I can with them.
Whether to buy cheap merchandise made by child labor, or prison labor
perhaps, or boycott Nestles when it was undermining infant health in 3rd
world countries, or invest in South American business under apartheidt, or
cross a picket line right here in town. (Which, I'll add, I've done with
relish in some cases.) Moral choices of all kinds at all levels face us
daily. Even what kind of car we drive has a moral component.
Indeed I wonder how in this day and age a fellow can live so safe from
moral choices as you declare yourself to be. Perhaps the kind of oblivion
that demands "extraordinary evidence" for any "claim" enables that
condition. All the more reason for you to permit others to suggest where
such choices may lie. And why you should have welcomed -- not denounced
--the heads-up.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:55 AM Z CST