On Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:30:13 -0500, Lee Bell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

All other things aside, Lee's clock was WRONG!  His post appeared before
mine (in Scuba-SE) time-stamped at Mon, 16 Dec 2002 07:25:29 -0500,
and MY clock is the only trustworthy one cuz it coincided with the
national TV Program clock and the clock of the Stock Market.  :-))


>David Strike wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, I've matured (?).  Today, of course, I've started to believe
>> that Morality, Justice and the Law are one and the same thing.  And that
>> physical violence never resolves anything!  ( I am, however, having
>> difficulty in convincing myself of that latter belief.)  :-)
>
>My, my, my, so many misconceptions:
>1. Morality is the personal code that you, individually live by.  It may or
>may not be just or legal.  Justice is the social code by which individuals
>or groups are rewarded or punished for their behavior.  It may or may not be
>moral or legal.  Law is a code imposed to allow people to live and function
>as a society which has been corrupted by political self interest, which is
>only occasionally moral or just. 8^)

I started to say, "I couldn't agree more", but that wouldn't be accurate.
As well as Lee put it, it would be more accurate for me to say,
"I agree 100% with what Lee said, but there's more!"   :-)

But Lee wouldn't benefit from any of my wisdom because

RF>  November 26, 2002 (two days before Thanksgiving) is a day I'll
RF>  remember to give thanks ... until Lee rescind his word.  ;-)


>2. Whoever said that physical violence never resolves anything, was lying.
>Unfortunately, it tends to violate law, even when it is both moral and just.
>8^)

Violated WHOSE law?  I have posted elsewhere (NOT about Lee):
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8fb7380b.0211261406.10de6717@
posting.google.com

RF> Your view about justice is truly myopic, even in the context of LAW!
RF> Have you heard of Islamic law or Napoleonic Law, to name just two
RF> common ones that have about as much similarity to "our" law as an
RF> orange or a pear is to a basketball!

As *I* had said, over and over again, that I judge everyone's post on
a CASE by CASE basis.  Thus, I can truly say that Lee has stated his
case well -- which is a rare feat for him in recent months!

I can also endorse Lee's ideas below:

>The problem goes beyond the property stolen
>from you to the underlying principals that protect the intellectual property
>of writers in your country and internationally.  There are both personal and
>social repercussions to this in all three arenas, morality, justice and law.
>
>No matter what other action you may or may not take, I still recommend you
>disclose the name of the perpetrators of the crime so that we may at least
>help by denying them from the benefit they might otherwise expect . . .
>sales dollars from those of us who consider morality and justice to be
>worthy ideals.

Strike, when Feeesh and Lee agree on points of MORAL and LEGAL issues,
it's hard to have two rights make one wrong!  Right?  :-)

Good Luck, and Good Wishes,

-- Bob.