Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (65424)	11/3/2002 2:16:19 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Except, for non religious people it is not a sin versus redemption, but a "we don't trust you...show us that you have changed." Sorry for the religious spin. What I was getting at was not necessarily religious but moral, which for most people has a religious base. Bad deeds, crimes, character flaws or whatever you want to call them are to be met with retribution or punishment but the offender can be redeemed having seen the error of his ways, by making reparations and/or accepting punishment and/or apologizing or the like. That is an entirely different approach to returning the offender to the fold than the systems approach to conflict resolution. I can't see any way of reaching resolution when the parties are operating in different paradigms. But I think it can be helpful to recognize that that is what is happening and the basis for much of the lack of progress. Square pegs and round holes and all of that. Chris hasn't "changed," I don't think. And he's not repentant, I don't think. I don't think he thinks he did anything "wrong," or at least not much wrong, and certainly not as much wrong as he's been accused of. So he ain't gonna apologize. He couldn't do that with much sincerity, anyway. If you guys who are operating from the moral paradigm haven't persuaded him by now that he was immoral, you aren't likely to given that everything you have to persuade him has already been said a bazillion times. Conversely, Chris isn't making any progress following his model. Whenever he speaks from it, it looks to the moralists like he is avoiding his moral comeuppance. Which he may be doing for all I know. Or he may simply be looking at solving the conflict from a more analytical, dispassionate, systems-type model and frustrated and confused that people keep fussing at him to apologize rather than analyzing all the components of a complex scenario. Square pegs and round holes.