Re: O.J. and Randal (Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted)

paw@coos.dartmouth.edu (Pat Wilson) wrote:
>Rob Lanphier <robla@eskimo.com> writes:
>>However,  I think it is very interesting comparing perceptions
>>of Randal to perceptions of O.J.  Note that something like 80% 
>>of whites believe that O.J. is guilty, compared to something
>>like 19% of blacks.  I'd be willing to bet that a similar
>>ratio exists with "plainfolk" versus net.junkies.
>Oh come on.  Randal _admits_ he did what he's accused of - it's
>not the *actions* that are in question here.  The real questions
>are whether the (over)reaction was justified, and if the punishment
>fits the crime.

No, I know the analogy isn't perfect.  The assumption that I think 
many computer folks are willing to make is that Randal had no
vicious intent.  That is what Randal _doesn't_ admit to, and that
is where I think opinion would be drawn along lines of computer

>Still, hopefully it's an object lesson for the rest of us - it
>doesn't matter whether your heart is pure if you piss off the wrong

No, the lesson here is this - if you don't want to be called 
a thief, don't look like a thief.

To the recipient of the actions, malice and stupidity are 
sometimes virtually indistinguishable.  Pureness of heart is a 
very subjective quality.  I'm not saying that Intel is in the 
right here, but I'm not about to say they are totally in the 
Rob Lanphier

Follow-Ups: References: