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.

Pastimes : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (9869)	4/16/1998 2:50:00 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

Of course it's complicated...and it's fascinating. I don't even know exactly what we're discussing anymore. Protecting out children does not mean that we throw her untreated into a dark, damp prison. If anything , your statements about her knowing they were soulmates since he was in second grade indicate she is even more unstable than I would have thought. (She should have waited a few more years then.) Do you think his parents might have thought he was safe because he was with an adult teacher? Is she villified beyond deserving? I don't know because I don't read magazines or newspapers so I don't know what everyone is saying. My reaction is totally my personal opinion of her behavior. (I think Seinfeld is pondscum too.) Soulmates---ahhh-now there's a topic for another day!!!!

To: Grainne who wrote (9869)	4/16/1998 3:31:00 PM
From: Thomas C. White	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71178

"She hurt a whole lot of people, including her children, and I think that is horrible. But women do things at least this hurtful all the time, and do not end up behind bars..." Hmmm. Just curious. Would you say the same thing if it were a man pushing his forties who impregnated a girl just into her teens? And pleaded that she was "the love of his life?" Would you say that men do things at least this hurtful all the time? This seems pretty hurtful on my scale. I have a few problems with some of these things. First, mental illness of itself is not an excuse. Most people are at least to some small degree mentally ill. The issue is whether they know what they are doing, for whatever reasons they decide to do something. There's a fundamental difference between someone who walks into a Luby's and machine guns fifteen people to death because he lost his wife and his job and he's furious at the world, and someone who does the same thing because he's hallucinating and he thinks that he's in Iraq in a foxhole, and being stormed by enemy soldiers. In the first case, the person is -- most likely -- fully aware that what he is doing is a fundamental transgression against the basic structures of society. He just has gotten to the point where he doesn't give a damn. He engages in a premeditated act of destruction simply to make himself somehow feel better, no matter what the expense to others in society. In the second case, the guy is totally clueless and cannot be held responsible for his actions, even though the level of transgression was the same in terms of its effects upon others. I would perhaps be somewhat more sympathetic to the Mary Le Tourneau if she had not accepted the mercy of the court, in full cognizance of the restrictions which the court placed upon her, and then engaged in a series of premeditated and clandestine acts calculated to circumvent the deal she made the first time. Regardless of her obsession, she was fully aware that she was flouting the terms under which they agreed that she would not go to prison. She knew exactly what she was doing, and that it was against a basic law that society has developed over centuries by mutual consent.