Ethics Thread

[Whsoj]

A friend has a welder, it's broken so he takes it to the place he bought it and they tell him it's going to be $300-$400 to fix it because the main circuit board is shot and it's out of warranty. He buys a new one instead of fixing the old one.

This friend knows I tinker with electronics and one night he sees me at the bar and asks if I want to look at this broken welder to see if I can get it running. I ask him how much he wants to spend to fix it assuming he is asking me to repair it for him. Instead, he told me the story in the first paragraph; he's already purchased a new one and I can just have the old one to see if I can fix it.

So, a month or so ago he drops it off on my back step, it's one of those compact wirefeed welders, a Millermatic 135. I do the obligatory Internet searching to see if there are any common problems and find that the circuit board issue is virtually always the driver transistor for the wire feed motor.

I do the confirmation checks and sure enough, it's the transistor shorted emitter to collector. It's going to cost $0.97 for the transistor and just under $3 for shipping from Digikey.

Is there any obligation to him for the welder, considering it's going to cost me less than $5 to fix it and maybe two hours time between the research and repair?

No It was a gift.

 

[chawagi]

OK. So I just finished a philosophy class dealing with ethics a few months ago. This was one of the most interesting classes I ever took. Really had some neat discusssions because there are no right or wrong answers to anything; just point/ counter-point.

Anyway, the week we dealt with Social Contract Theory of Ethics vs the State of Nature, this was the discussion question:

Players in the popular World of Warcraft Internet game often form "guilds" or groups that join together in mutual defense and to attack other groups. One dedicated member of such a guild died (in real-life, not in the game), and the members of her guild decided to hold a memorial service for her within the game that she loved. They announced the planned memorial on a World of Warcraft open forum, and one of the members of her guild logged into her account, and placed the deceased woman's character at her favorite game site, a lake. Other game characters from her guild came by the game site to pay their respects and honor their deceased gaming friend.

Members of a rival guild, on learning of the planned memorial, organized a "bombing attack" on the memorial service, thus destroying many of their rivals and winning kill points. Those game players who had participated in the memorial service were outraged, and accused the rival guild of being underhanded and disrespectful. Was the attack on the memorial service unfair? Was it morally wrong? Was it a violation of the gaming social contract? Explain.

Mull this over and give your opinions. I thought this was a neat scenario considering how seriously some people take these games, and how rapidly online relationships and lives are beginning to overshadow real-world existence.

Edit: Yes, I realize the irony of making this statement on an online forum so spare the sarcasm...lol

 

[Jacob_Marley]

OK. So I just finished a philosophy class dealing with ethics a few months ago. This was one of the most interesting classes I ever took. Really had some neat discusssions because there are no right or wrong answers to anything; just point/ counter-point.

Anyway, the week we dealt with Social Contract Theory of Ethics vs the State of Nature, this was the discussion question:

Players in the popular World of Warcraft Internet game often form "guilds" or groups that join together in mutual defense and to attack other groups. One dedicated member of such a guild died (in real-life, not in the game), and the members of her guild decided to hold a memorial service for her within the game that she loved. They announced the planned memorial on a World of Warcraft open forum, and one of the members of her guild logged into her account, and placed the deceased woman's character at her favorite game site, a lake. Other game characters from her guild came by the game site to pay their respects and honor their deceased gaming friend.

Members of a rival guild, on learning of the planned memorial, organized a "bombing attack" on the memorial service, thus destroying many of their rivals and winning kill points. Those game players who had participated in the memorial service were outraged, and accused the rival guild of being underhanded and disrespectful. Was the attack on the memorial service unfair? Was it morally wrong? Was it a violation of the gaming social contract? Explain.

Mull this over and give your opinions. I thought this was a neat scenario considering how seriously some people take these games, and how rapidly online relationships and lives are beginning to overshadow real-world existence.

Edit: Yes, I realize the irony of making this statement on an online forum so spare the sarcasm...lol

A direct corollary of this is the confusion of young people who think and act as though online interaction with someone whom they have never met in person or spent face-to-face time with, is a “relationship”.
Confused, sad, pitiful.
They are confusing the dry, definitional meaning of “relationship” with the real-world, practical definition whose implications are the real and full content of the human experience.
All cherubim are seraphim but not all seraphim are cherubim.
“Relationships” are multi-dimensional ... and not the narrow reality of a merely abstract pen-pal-like interaction. The narrow content of electronic interaction is just one aspect of the whole of our reality ... but just one part ... and by comparison to the multi-dimensional, synergistic, profound nature of our real-world existences ... just one anemic, watery, narrow part.

Humans have hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, both physical and societal, which has been formed by the full reality of our physical, mental and emotional experiences, and all of the interrelated effects that each of those spheres has on the whole.
Since the scourge of commercially propagated gaming addiction and online and electronic communication; peoples’ increasing unwillingness to distinguish between the full spectrum of reality and the insular, narrow scope of “artificial reality” has spread rapidly like crack addiction ... and uses some of the same electric circuits in our heads.
It is both faddish infatuation with this new electronic whiz-bangery, and also the succumbing of our humanity (what makes us human - particularly in society) to artificial stimulus .
A type of stimulus-addiction that is analogous to someone being so addicted to masturbation that the rest of their lives suffer ... suffer both from the time it takes from their limited allotment of time that fate will give them (to be what by anthropologic standards, is "human"), and also the *health* that actually dealing with reality, provides.

Now ... with regard to your specific question ...

I am not surprised that the attackers did not, or would not, distinguish between reality (the tragedy of losing someone in the physical world) and the game they were playing.
Btw: It is completely notwithstanding that her interaction with everyone involved was through electronic gaming ... every single person knew that she existed as a real human being with the same needs and wants and loves ... and divinity ... that we all have.

If they reacted that way because they are jerky human arseholes ... then fine ... humans have acted abominably to each other since the dawn of civilization.
If they acted that way because their minds have been warped (a really good term for this) by their unnatural insular interaction with electronica, then that is the manifestation of an unfortunate pathology that we are likely to see more and more of as people struggle to remain human in the face of interacting electronically while as a consequence their personal character slowly dissolves ... as it does in substance abuse.

 

[chawagi]

I am not surprised that the attackers did not, or would not, distinguish between reality (the tragedy of losing someone in the physical world) and the game they were playing.

You seem to be taking the same stance I took in that it was definitely a violation of accepted norms in real world society, and a failure to properly respect the somber observance of death rituals.

However, the game itself occurs in a virtual world where the State of Nature is the norm (i.e. ultimately it is every man for him- or herself) and Social Contracts (i.e. I don't want you to kill me or steal my stuff, so I agree not to do these things to you) exist only as far as is necessary to accomplish a shared goal.

Since the attack occured in game where those attacked presumably understood and acknowledged the possibility of such an attack, and they themselves failed to prepare for such a possibility by defending themselves, can the behavior really be classified as non-moral or unethical in regards to the social contract all players enter when participating in the game?

 

[mbauer013]

I thought you had to accept other Palyer Charachter challenges in order for them to attack you, or at least have an option toggled on. To my mind this was completely acceptable, if it occured as written, as the WoW world is very like the dark ages in terms or ethics. Back then they would often take advantage of a holiday or gathering to attack the people when their guard is down. Heck, look at the Viet Nam war and the Tet offensive, all is fair in war, and the game is the World of Warcraft.

 

[Jacob_Marley]

Since the attack occured in game where those attacked presumably understood and acknowledged the possibility of such an attack, and they themselves failed to prepare for such a possibility by defending themselves, can the behavior really be classified as non-moral or unethical in regards to the social contract all players enter when participating in the game?

There was no "game" ... she died.
The perspective here is one of the real world, not the gaming world ... she actually died.
This was not merely her character in the game dying and then the attackers attacked. She died in real life.
All bets are off ... all games are off.
The attack activity within the game was the equivalent of having sent her friends/acquaintances on that gaming site a "F*ck you and f*ck her, she was a worthless #*$%@!!*!" greeting card.

 

[CGVT]

There was no "game" ... she died.
The perspective here is one of the real world, not the gaming world ... she actually died.
This was not merely her character in the game dying and then the attackers attacked. She died in real life.
All bets are off ... all games are off.
The attack activity within the game was the equivalent of having sent her friends/acquaintances on that gaming site a "F*ck you and f*ck her, she was a worthless #*$%@!!*!" greeting card.

She was never attacked. She was dead

Th attack was in the game. The game is never off. It was an attack of imaginary characters on imaginary characters within the game.

He friends that planned the memorial are nut cases if they expect there to be the dignity that is shown to a human be the same as that shown to a character in a game.

 

[Jacob_Marley]

She was never attacked. She was dead

Th attack was in the game. The game is never off. It was an attack of imaginary characters on imaginary characters within the game.

He friends that planned the memorial are nut cases if they expect there to be the dignity that is shown to a human be the same as that shown to a character in a game.

They were honoring her, not her character, as a result of her death in REAL LIFE.
Had she not died in real life her friends on the game would not have been memorializing her.
Whatever the memorial ... in a game, at a service, at public memorial of art or a marker, or even just in conversation with others, when someone (or a group) does something to demean the honor her friends online were trying to bestow after her REAL LIFE death, they are deciding to either act like arseholes, or are confused as to the appropriateness of their gesture, or both.

Like I say, I have no problem with the slight as long as it was intentional. People act poorly to each other all the time.
What I have a problem with is when people can't discern between something that happens in real life, such as a real death, and things that are make-believe.

As we move further and further toward virtual representations of things in the real world ... grand theft auto, black ops etc ... online gaming ... or online "relationships", it becomes increasingly more important that we stop and consider the implication of our electronic behavior and how it relates to the real world ... and IMPORTANTLY how we mentally process "situational experiences" that have a very strong component of realism such that our minds perceive those situations, in part, as real.
Our perceptions are no longer tried-and-true ... now, in the virtual and electronic world, we have to stop and interpret what our minds perceive as to whether and how reality is involved.

 

[CGVT]

What I have a problem with is when people can't discern between something that happens in real life, such as a real death, and things that are make-believe.

Exactly. Those that were memorializing her in the game and were upset or even surprised by the attack could not do this.

To those that play that game, the memorial was part of the game, as such, the characters at the memorial were fair game (pun intended). To expect otherwise was silly.

 

[Cromwell]

A direct corollary of this is the confusion of young people who think and act as though online interaction with someone whom they have never met in person or spent face-to-face time with, is a “relationship”.
Confused, sad, pitiful.

Actually, you're wrong here. A "relationship" is defined as
re·la·tion·ship [ri-ley-shuhn-ship] noun
1. a connection, association, or involvement.

So, by the definition, everyone in the guild has a relationship with this person since they all associate.

Second, just because you haven't developed a strong relationship with someone online, don't think it doesn't happen. I have played WoW, and have made some very good friends. Sometimes, on-line relationships are extended into off-line or rt. Like many things, there is a very broad spectrum of on-line relationships.

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Not so much unethical as "awkward and embarrassing" was the other day. I work with a guy named Bob Lee. Bob is of Asian descent. He called the other day and his name showed up on my phone as B. Lee.

I picked up my phone "Good Morning Bruce!"

Dufuq, Brain?!

 

[Whsoj]

Not so much unethical as "awkward and embarrassing" was the other day. I work with a guy named Bob Lee. Bob is of Asian descent. He called the other day and his name showed up on my phone as B. Lee.

I picked up my phone "Good Morning Bruce!"

Dufuq, Brain?!

I cant stop laughing

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Ok, here's a good one that I am actually agonizing over.

I am setting up an interview for my team with a new candidate. Honestly, I have 0 stake in whether or not the candidate is hired.

In looking over her resume in order to get a phone number I found a GLARING spelling error that my team overlooked. She mispelled the word "manufacturing"... which is part of the company name of one of her past employers.

Since I have made myriad mistakes in my career my first impulse is to say nothing and give the lady a break. Is this more or less ethical than pointing it out to my team?

 

[LLBeanJ]

I'd let it go and cut her some slack. I know some HR/hiring managers will toss a resume over a simple spelling error, but I always thought that to be total BS. If the woman is otherwise qualified then give her an interview and let that speak for itself. Heck, some of your team members probably caught it as well and are thinking the same thing.

I guess it also depends on the position. I'm currently looking over resumes to hire a CNC machinist, so I don't expect perfection on a resume, as we're not working with a pool of Rhodes Scholars here. I suppose if I were looking to hire an English teacher then spelling/grammar errors would be more difficult to ignore.

 

[hunter_le five]

I wouldn't toss a single resume just because of a spelling error. Probably an honest mistake.

However, if I have a stack of 50 resumes all applying for the same one position, then you bet your ass that I will (and have been known to in the past) toss the ones with glaring spelling/grammatical errors straight away. I've got to whittle the list down somehow, so I'll give preferential treatment to people with attention to detail, that, you know, actually bothered to proofread/spell-check their resume.

 

[GuldTuborg]

I'd say it also matters whether it was a typo or a spelling error. The critical difference is, does the applicant actually know how to spell "manufacturing" reliably? If that person can't spell a basic word that is part of the company name, that's a problem. If it's just a typo, it's still not good, but I'd cut the person some slack, unless this is for a communications/PR kind of role. For those jobs, you have to be able to communicate well and proofread well, and basic mistakes on something as important as a resume may point to other mistakes in basic duties later.

 

[Subsailor]

In this day and age of Spellcheck and many jobs requiring advanced education, I tend to be more critical of spelling, punctuation and other grammatical errors on Cover Letters and Resumes.
I have a relaxed manner of speaking and writing among family and friends (HBT included) and a very much more formal approach in the professional atmosphere.
I had to hire a new temporary technican a month ago and one of the applicants that made it through HR simply amazed me with his inability to spell, let alone form a reasonable and understandable sentence. I did learn later that his was allowed simply for the fun factor of seeing what some people submit. I am currently preparing to hire a new permanent technician and I will be critical of the applicants submissions.

 

[ivegot2legs]

My 8th grade science teacher said any cover letter or resume that was not written in cursive was immediately thrown away. I couldn't believe that lady, and how petty some people will be about that stuff.

 

[fuzzy2133]

I tend not to tolerate resumes longer than 2 pages. 9 times out of 10 its all past jobs were short term.

 

[sivispacemparabe11um]

Is it unethical to click on the ads on the side of the site to generate a litl bit of income for the nice people that run this site? I was thinking of clicking a few knowing good and well I probably won't buy anything.

 

[GuldTuborg]

I tend not to tolerate resumes longer than 2 pages. 9 times out of 10 its all past jobs were short term.

It's funny how different lines of work differ in this regard. Last one I looked at was 24 pages long!

 

[CreamyGoodness]

Here's a really good one. For the sake of the example, you have an assistant who takes a lunch order each day for you. You give them cash or your card, and they order delivery.

You come to find out that they have been using a popular third-part ordering website (delivery.com) and have been collecting points on each transaction which benefit them monetarily at the end of the year.

Seeing as how they have provided you with both the food and all the change you are entitled to, have they done anything untoward?

 

[mcbaumannerb]

Here's a really good one. For the sake of the example, you have an assistant who takes a lunch order each day for you. You give them cash or your card, and they order delivery.

You come to find out that they have been using a popular third-part ordering website (delivery.com) and have been collecting points on each transaction which benefit them monetarily at the end of the year.

Seeing as how they have provided you with both the food and all the change you are entitled to, have they done anything untoward?

I don't see a problem with that. A little perk for doing the grunt work. Not much different than you collecting frequent flier miles when the company buys the ticket.

 

[gratus fermentatio]

I don't see a problem with that. A little perk for doing the grunt work. Not much different than you collecting frequent flier miles when the company buys the ticket.

Agreed, couldn't have said it better myself.
Regards, GF.

 

[Chia]

I think the ethics of "sharing" music at least are rapidly changing. When I can opt to listen to a song on youtube that the artist him/herself posted without buying it, it simply means that the business model has changed dramatically. Putting your music on spotify or youtube is akin to playing the guitar on the street corner. You put yourself out there and maybe something good happens, maybe it doesnt.

In the case of torrents... yeah... that is theft of intellectual property. I dont think it warrants some of the unbelievable fines people have received for it, but yes it should be punished.

What about downloading a book that your library does not have? or that they have only one copy of and it is out and reserved for when it comes back?

 

[Laughing_Gnome_Invisible]

Regarding Chawagi's post about WOW.... OK, so the gamers seem to have a blurred sense between real life and gaming. It would be perfectly OK for me to have a similar sense of disorientation and cock-punch one of those idiots in real life. Sorry officer, I was confused.

 

[Crito]

Ha! I guess I won't be inviting you over for a beer then...

Well, in a SHTF situation. I think its ethical to consider all humans possible enemies when entering your property. Even going to the front door. (Given people are starving to death situation). Considering people's attitude of "what's yours is mine".

Which I would not steal from people in a SHTF situation.

 

[Chia]

As we move further and further toward virtual representations of things in the real world ... grand theft auto, black ops etc ... online gaming ... or online "relationships", it becomes increasingly more important that we stop and consider the implication of our electronic behavior and how it relates to the real world ... and IMPORTANTLY how we mentally process "situational experiences" that have a very strong component of realism such that our minds perceive those situations, in part, as real.
Our perceptions are no longer tried-and-true ... now, in the virtual and electronic world, we have to stop and interpret what our minds perceive as to whether and how reality is involved.

after college i played a MMORPG as a way to hang out with friends and chat while doing something fun. As i progressed through the game, i made several friends. I still keep in touch with many of them via facebook, and have even gone or had them come to visit over the years. online life and Real Life often blur now. you can talk with someone via these games and it is very similar to sitting around playing D&D only you are not in the same room. for the people holding the memorial, it is a very real memorial for them. for the ass jammers, that is a total dick move. very unethical.

 

[HoppyDaze]

after college i played a MMORPG as a way to hang out with friends and chat while doing something fun. As i progressed through the game, i made several friends. I still keep in touch with many of them via facebook, and have even gone or had them come to visit over the years. online life and Real Life often blur now. you can talk with someone via these games and it is very similar to sitting around playing D&D only you are not in the same room. for the people holding the memorial, it is a very real memorial for them. for the ass jammers, that is a total dick move. very unethical.

Omertà?

 

[fuzzy2133]

Well, in a SHTF situation. I think its ethical to consider all humans possible enemies when entering your property. Even going to the front door. (Given people are starving to death situation). Considering people's attitude of "what's yours is mine".

Which I would not steal from people in a SHTF situation.

+1
I guarantee if society breaks down into a SHTF situation many of the people you know and interact with daily will be considered hostile on first contact. Personally I will not attack them however I will be ready to respond at a moments notice.

 

[Zuljin]

Here's a really good one. For the sake of the example, you have an assistant who takes a lunch order each day for you. You give them cash or your card, and they order delivery.

You come to find out that they have been using a popular third-part ordering website (delivery.com) and have been collecting points on each transaction which benefit them monetarily at the end of the year.

Seeing as how they have provided you with both the food and all the change you are entitled to, have they done anything untoward?

If I had an assistant fetching my lunch, I'd be glad for that. If they found a way, at no cost to me, to benefit themselves from doing it, I'd be even more glad to have them. That is slick.

A direct corollary of this is the confusion of young people who think and act as though online interaction with someone whom they have never met in person or spent face-to-face time with, is a “relationship”.
Confused, sad, pitiful.
They are confusing the dry, definitional meaning of “relationship” with the real-world, practical definition whose implications are the real and full content of the human experience.
All cherubim are seraphim but not all seraphim are cherubim.
“Relationships” are multi-dimensional ... and not the narrow reality of a merely abstract pen-pal-like interaction. The narrow content of electronic interaction is just one aspect of the whole of our reality ... but just one part ... and by comparison to the multi-dimensional, synergistic, profound nature of our real-world existences ... just one anemic, watery, narrow part.

Humans have hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, both physical and societal, which has been formed by the full reality of our physical, mental and emotional experiences, and all of the interrelated effects that each of those spheres has on the whole.
Since the scourge of commercially propagated gaming addiction and online and electronic communication; peoples’ increasing unwillingness to distinguish between the full spectrum of reality and the insular, narrow scope of “artificial reality” has spread rapidly like crack addiction ... and uses some of the same electric circuits in our heads.
It is both faddish infatuation with this new electronic whiz-bangery, and also the succumbing of our humanity (what makes us human - particularly in society) to artificial stimulus .
A type of stimulus-addiction that is analogous to someone being so addicted to masturbation that the rest of their lives suffer ... suffer both from the time it takes from their limited allotment of time that fate will give them (to be what by anthropologic standards, is "human"), and also the *health* that actually dealing with reality, provides.

Now ... with regard to your specific question ...

I am not surprised that the attackers did not, or would not, distinguish between reality (the tragedy of losing someone in the physical world) and the game they were playing.
Btw: It is completely notwithstanding that her interaction with everyone involved was through electronic gaming ... every single person knew that she existed as a real human being with the same needs and wants and loves ... and divinity ... that we all have.

If they reacted that way because they are jerky human arseholes ... then fine ... humans have acted abominably to each other since the dawn of civilization.
If they acted that way because their minds have been warped (a really good term for this) by their unnatural insular interaction with electronica, then that is the manifestation of an unfortunate pathology that we are likely to see more and more of as people struggle to remain human in the face of interacting electronically while as a consequence their personal character slowly dissolves ... as it does in substance abuse.

Westboro. Real life. At funerals.

She was never attacked. She was dead

Th attack was in the game. The game is never off. It was an attack of imaginary characters on imaginary characters within the game.

He friends that planned the memorial are nut cases if they expect there to be the dignity that is shown to a human be the same as that shown to a character in a game.

Those human friends did exactly that. They displayed to her memory as a person, via their toons, the dignity that is shown to a human. It wasn't nuts at all to expect what they were in deed doing.

Now, being as this was on a pvp server, yeah, a certain degree of, 'what did you expect?', was to be expected. Especially when the Alliance is involved.

The video can be seen by searching for, "serenity now bombs a funeral".

Actually, you're wrong here. A "relationship" is defined as
re·la·tion·ship [ri-ley-shuhn-ship] noun
1. a connection, association, or involvement.

So, by the definition, everyone in the guild has a relationship with this person since they all associate.

Second, just because you haven't developed a strong relationship with someone online, don't think it doesn't happen. I have played WoW, and have made some very good friends. Sometimes, on-line relationships are extended into off-line or rt. Like many things, there is a very broad spectrum of on-line relationships.

Several of the people I played WOW with were irl friends before WOW. I made a few more through playing wow. Some of us are good friends even now. Two of them met through wow, got married, and are now expecting their second child.

Online has become the new watering hole. It's a place to meet people. I've met people through HBT.

 

[Crito]

+1
I guarantee if society breaks down into a SHTF situation many of the people you know and interact with daily will be considered hostile on first contact. Personally I will not attack them however I will be ready to respond at a moments notice.

Just mention/create a conversation that you took the "be prepared" from the FEMA/CDC advertisements seriously. And see how many coworkers and friends will say that they will not 'be prepared' and even state they will steal stuff from other people.

 

[CGVT]

 

[Zuljin]

I'd save Kim. She's a woman and I'm a man. I'd look chivalrous for saving her, where as society would question me harshly for saving an athletic man who may have had a better chance of saving himself. And then I'd get a nice financial reward from the rich lady.

It may not be ethical, but it is accurate.

 

[CGVT]

I'd save Kim too. Then she could make me a sandwich.

 

[Zuljin]

I'd save Kim too. Then she could make me a sandwich.

Would your decision hinge on what kind of sandwich?

 

[gratus fermentatio]

+1
I guarantee if society breaks down into a SHTF situation many of the people you know and interact with daily will be considered hostile on first contact. Personally I will not attack them however I will be ready to respond at a moments notice.

Interesting. Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, what if it was you who was starving? Maybe you & your wife in desperate need of food, or maybe medical treatment? I'm not saying you would or wouldn't, I'm just saying desperate people tend to do desperate things. Would you really choose to starve slowly, knowing your neighbor had a surplus of food, but refused to share with you?
Regards, GF.

 

[Zuljin]

Interesting. Just to play devil's advocate for a minute, what if it was you who was starving? Maybe you & your wife in desperate need of food, or maybe medical treatment? I'm not saying you would or wouldn't, I'm just saying desperate people tend to do desperate things. Would you really choose to starve slowly, knowing your neighbor had a surplus of food, but refused to share with you?
Regards, GF.

If an amicable agreement could not be reached, a violent one would be; win or lose.

 

[forstmeister]

If an amicable agreement could not be reached, a violent one would be; win or lose.

In my opinion this is exactly what makes The Walking Dead so fascinating. I could almost do without the zombies even. The societal breakdown and what ensues are much more interesting to me.

 

[Zuljin]

In my opinion this is exactly what makes The Walking Dead so fascinating. I could almost do without the zombies even. The societal breakdown and what ensues are much more interesting to me.

See. I wouldn't *want* to be a bad guy. I'd much rather get along and live like that group in "The Postman". But, not everybody's a good guy. And two wrongs may not make a right, but if a wrong would keep me alive in the face of rather immediate death, well, I'm number one.