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: one_less who wrote (68531)	11/26/2002 6:33:07 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Okay. Philosophically, I think the note passer was innocent of evil intent, but was responsible for being woefully naive. And surely from the cashier's response he must have realized that something was wrong, so the fact that he still went out and gave the money to the "blind" guy brings his innocence into serious question. And if the "blind" guy got away, the note passer is, IMO, responsible for repaying the money taken to the bank, since he was, even if not intentionally, responsible for the loss and he knew or should have known better.