Text 13621, 110 rader
Skriven 2010-05-31 00:36:17 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
  Kommentar till text 13612 av Ross Cassell (1:123/456)
Ärende: Criminal? U R Really Nutz
=================================
Hello Ross,

On Sun 2038-May-30 14:55, Ross Cassell (1:123/456) wrote to Richard Webb:

<snip>

 RW> good advice on that front.  ONe can understand it with a 15
 RW> year old that bares his/her soul and life to others on
 RW> facebook and myspace, but adults should know better.

RC> and the sad thing is, he will continue to do so.

Seems like.  But, many folks these days don't seem to
consider what their privacy actually means to them, or
should.

<snip again>

 RW> We do indeed have the "people in glass houses" thing going
 RW> on here a bit, granted.  But I've known people whom I would
 RW> trust with anything I owned with worse criminal records, at

RC> The big difference here I suspect is that those people arent
RC> necessarily passing judgement upon you..

Even bigger difference is I've known them personally, in
some cases after they acquired said criminal record, in
other cases before.  tHey've proven to me over time that
they can be trusted.

RC> A bank robber has no business calling a shoplifter a thief.. :) 

AGreed, and often the bank robber who's trying to change his stripes would
rather keep a rather low profile <g>.  IF he's smart he'll let his actions do
the talking.

 RW> I would hope you don't judge me as harshly as
 RW> you do him, because, although you know some things about him I
 RW> would venture that you don't really know me.  YOu know what you might
 RW> have been able to look up via yahoo and google, and what I've allowed
 RW> to be known about me.  But then, I'm even quite particular about whom
 RW> I will provide my social security number.

RC> On common sense issues, you and I are on the same page, on political
RC> ideology it probably ranges to opposites to middle..

Agreed, that's much as I see if from what I've learned in my interactions with
you, both since rejoining fido a few years ago, and my recollection of your
posts a few places a bit
over a decade ago when I encountered you a few places around the net.

RC> I have no reason to judge you as harshly as I do and have Wayne, for
RC> one you dont have the traits he has to do the things he has in
RC> berating others over different views.

Much of this precedes my involvement in fido, he wasn't
around back in the '90's when I was quite active before.  I
encountered his name, iirc in this echo when I first hooked
up, a spoof post iirc.

 RC>> If you watch a debate, the foes will seize upon any weaknesses
 RC>> expressed by the other(s), had Wayne been more of a mystery, no
 RC>> weaknesses, its that simple.

 RW> Agreed, this often happens, I just choose for myself, and
 RW> those to whom I give any credence to see the weakness of the ideas
 RW> debated and not the individual.  Did I care that CLinton was a
 RW> philanderer?  No.  Was I aware of this fact when I considered the
 RW> possibility of voting for him in '92? YEs.  Did that fact cause me to
 RW> not mark my ballot for him? No, it had no bearing on that.

RC> I am wary of any Democrat who goes hollywoodish.. Clinton did it, so
RC> did Obama. Kerry had he got elected in 04, was too goofy to be
RC> hollywoodish. 

As was I, and I did not vote for him, nor did I vote for
Bush the elder, and from my past posts you can probably
guess what direction I went.  But, his womanizing had
nothing to do with my decision.  YEs they were character
traits that might have concerned me a bit, but the political ideology concerned
me more.

RC> Hollywoodish as like they know they are famous and carry on like
RC> they are teen idols, Leif Garrett, David/Shaun Cassidy style..

I've seen enough of that from the politicos, but then, in my profession I've
had to work closely with such people.  I
just try to do my job the best I can and help them present
themselves to the audience.  That's not a lifestyle I"d like to have as my own.

RC> But to chide you a bit, because the electorate shrugged off his
RC> daliances prior to the 92 Election, it gave tacit approval to his
RC> more notable daliance that stained his Presidency (and a dress) and
RC> legal career, most forget that the Lewinsky affair physically took
RC> lace in 95.

INdeed it was, and imho it was a matter of divorce.  Did he
lie about it?  Definitely.  But then, as a young lad my mama taught me that
gentlemen don't kiss and tell.  Did I figure
something like that might happen?  Yes, indeed I did.  IT
was pretty obvious to me that he'd do something like that
given the opportunity.  But, again, I had greater concerns
regarding his whole philosophy of governance, which even
were he mister upright would have caused me not to mark my
ballot for him.

Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)