Re: O.J. and Randal (Re: Perl Co-inventor Convicted)
email@example.com (Pat Wilson) wrote:
>Rob Lanphier <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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