Paul
The word humanitarian used to have such a pleasant sound for me.
After going through this thread and reading the posts that have been
associated with humanitarian objectives, it now brings a
warm fuzzy feeling in my stomach, that quickly turns to a vomit.
But, alas we must try to stomach what we can.
I have a few ideas that I would not mind hearing your opinion regarding
the humanitarian content.
A major scam is organized by a few. These few have friends who get the
word out of the glorious rewards to be gained. The friends may or may
not know they are promoting a scam, they may just be thinking they are
helping their friends and others, and making a few bucks to boot.
Now, one of the friends, is an associate/friend of a prominent person
in the industry. The friend may or may not have stated the true nature
of the scam, if the friend was even aware in the first place. The
prominent person may honestly think they have been guided to a good
thing by a good friend, and promoted the hell out of this new found
good thing.
It is totally understandable that a good thing should be promoted.
It is totally understandable that this good thing would be defended at
all costs, since at times good things get attacked. Believe me I know
this to be true.
Having chosen to be on the side of the game of the new found good thing
it would be dis-honorable to give the other side a chance to prove it a
bad thing.(keeping in mind you truly believe it to be a good thing.)
Admiration could be generated for ones ability to stay honourable to
the chosen side.
Now what happens when the good thing is proven as a bad thing, that
the good thing is actually a scam.
What does one do.
Suppose a prominent figure is faced with this situation. The prominent
figure is known for their loyalty. It is a part of their stock in trade.
Wow! What a dilemna.
The prominent person goes to the perpetrator of the fraud and says
what is the truth. The perpetrator says I am innocent.
The prominent person has a question to answer. Is he lying/ is he telling
the truth.
The prominent person may decide that until proven guilty I must stay
honourable. Even though it may bring a lot of undue harassment and
guilt association if he is later proven guilty. I must stay honourable
as that is my stock in trade.
The prominent person could attack the perception devices that the
provers of the bad thing used, etc.....
Is the prominent person acting in a manner that is well advised. Is the
prominent figure forgetting that being honourable to the game is not
the only issue. Is the prominent person forgetting that the game is
played in an arena. What if protecting the game leads to the destruction
of the arena and to the desruction of other truly good games in the
arena. Some could get really po'ed.
Would a future contact of the prominent person look at the
actions taken and say well done you stayed honourable. Or would that
future person say you did not attempt to safeguard the arena.
That is the true problem to solve.
Now aditionally suppose another party comes along who recognizes the
need to safeguard the industry, and wishes to expose the scam for what
it is. Suppose this individual has compassion for those duped and does
not wish to see further harm done than what is neccessary, to get to the
perpetrators. There are degrees of innocence to consider and degrees
of guilt. What does this individual do when running up against a
person with a misguided sense of honour. The individual could offer
a viewpoint that shows there can be more to see than just the game.
The individual could offer a carrot. The individual could make one
last attempt to allow the person to save face, if that prominent person
is just being duped and is just trying to misguidedly be loyal. Otherwise
the individual may have to cause a bit of damage to accomplish the greater
good. If the individual has a time crisis thrust upon him he may not
be able to tread so gently any more.
This of course is as usual just straight out of my imagination and not
meant to imply anything. It is just that you so rarely post that I just
wanted to get your opinion of how you view things.
Thanks for your time,
Keith
BTW, my opinion is that a thorough investigation meant to satisfy
oneself of whether the perpetrator is guilty or innocent would be
viewed as honourable and serving a higher sense of justice. That is
just my opinion. It is better to have to later fix up a few innocent
bystanders than to allow a large number of innocent bystanders get
unneccessarily hurt over a span of time. |
