Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote (Quidam @ July 17 2008,21:16) | | Quote (Louis @ July 17 2008,11:41) | | if some people are willing to send emails calling for her head (not that I did) |
Neither did I.
| Quote (Louis @ July 17 2008,11:41) |
Anyway, she is quite possibly an innocent victim of her husband's vicious stupidity and what at best could be only a mild lapse on her part. Of course it could be any number of permutations more damning than that, but I'm a firm supporter of innocent until proven guilty. She might share her husbands odious bigotry but then she might not, I simply don't know and thus grant her the benefit of the doubt. I've never denied that my assumption of her innocence is anything but the purest speculation, and I never would! I hope I'm not proven wrong but I rather suspect probably will be! |
Then your appeal for clemency is based on no information and is meaningless. You may presume innocence, but you have no responsibility or jurisdiction in the matter. The people who do, have investigated and made a decision, based on information we are not privy to.
1800Flowers deals with online customers and stores credit card information, addresses and personal information from customers. Their credibility has taken an enormous hit when nutjobs can apparently access their servers at will. From Melanie's post she has to connect via a VPN to send or receive email, either she failed to disconnect when done or her computer is set to autoconnect. That is a significant breach of security with potentially serious consequences. I'm glad I'm not a customer of theirs with my credit card information accessible to the likes of Chuck.
So I'm going to let them make their own informed decision on this internal personnel matter and not presume to advise them. |
Hi Quidam,
I think you've missed my point.
I'm not presuming to *advise* 1-800-Flowers, nor would I. Not only that I agree with basically eveything you've said about internal procedures/culpability/potential security risk etc. Our disagreement isn't about the facts of the case that we know, but about the things we don;t know and actions based upon them. Please don't insist on your interpretation of my words (and using a word I have expressedly not used, nor anything close to its meaning) when I've made what I mean abundantly clear.
I *know* that I know very few (if any) of the details which is precisely why I appealed for clemency, if I had all the details then any appeal for clemency would be meaningless, quite the reverse of what you think in fact, because I could follow the justification for it rather than imagining what it might be. Advise is vastly too strong a term, to the point of meaning something else entirely. You seem also to be assuming that I think 1-800-Flowers will give a shit about my email (or anyone else's for that matter), I don't. I'm also in no position to "let" them make a decision or not, I have no illusions about my ability to influence their decision.
My question is, and remains so if it wasn't clear from the implication in previous posts, where was your outrage when people were emailing 1-800-Flowers calling for M Kroll's head? Pretty much every (perfectly correct) justification for not emailing them you make applies equally to that. Do the people who sent her employer an email calling for her firing deserve some kind of free pass because they were dealing with a potential felony? If that's the case I'd like to report that not only have I speeded when driving, I've parked illegally, loitered with intent, taken a wide array of illegal chemicals, made explosives, caused detenations and a whole slew of other crimes that come under headings as diverse as misdemeanour and terrorism. That's not even counting activist and protesting work I've done! Please insist that Wesley release my email address (which contains my easily searchable surname) and contact my local constabulary. I support you fully in your desire to have me convicted of crimes I will happily admit to.
My point is that if it is presumptuous for ME to contact 1-800-Flowers pleading for clemency (and I agree that it is) it was at least as presumptuous for hoardes of Pharyngulites to contact them calling for blood. The thin veneer of "legal justification" doesn't wash, and IMO is a cover for the worst kind of hypocrisy. If we are willing to get energised to tear something down I think we need also to be willing to get energised to build something up. It's the mob mentality I dislike, the baying hoardes of any stripe. It is, to me, the worst kind of human irrationality. In group/Out group identification, cooperative "violence" etc, these are deep seated reactions to certain situations that we, as humans, possess, and I am a firm advocate of combatting them wherever possible. It seems that many people's compassion extended to someone they agree with (PZ. How horrible and illegal it was to receive death threats) but not to someone they don't agree with (M Kroll. How justified and wonderful she lost her job). Don't you find the very thin justifications to attack someone we disagree with ever so slightly transparent?
Two final things.
1) I am in no way saying that M Kroll's job loss is professionally unjustified. It most likely is. 1-800-Flowers are probably perfectly adhering to their internal policies, I have little doubt that they have come to a decision that is perfectly clear by those policies. The point is slightly more obtuse than that! Nor am I equating M Kroll's an PZ's positions. They aren't equal.
2) On the computing facts of the case: I don't think I have (or would) dispute the POTENTIAL seriousness of such a security break down. Do you have any concrete evidence of the negative consequences you mention? Do you have any evidence of the "enormous hit" 1-800-Flowers' credibility has taken? Or is your support for both just anecdotal? Bear in mind that when I say this I am AGREEING with both of these things. I see precisely how credibility could be hit by this, and it most likely has been, and I am well aware of the potential crimes based on poor IT security (having been a victim of ID fraud a few years ago). My point here is that we're ALL speculating about the potential costs and facts of this stupid incident, and some are as quick to damn as they can be, so I reckon it behooves some to be equally as quick to plea for leniency. Both cases lack a large amount of data to support them, both cases rely on a great deal of emotional appeal and anecdote. Both are bad cases. One perhaps slightly worse than the other, no false equivalence is needed, but neither good.
BTW:
| Quote | | Then your appeal for clemency is based on no information and is meaningless. You may presume innocence, but you have no responsibility or jurisdiction in the matter. The people who do, have investigated and made a decision, based on information we are not privy to. |
This is wonderful. Almost these exact words have been used to justify non-intervention in tyranny and torture the world over. I'm not accusing you of anything, but these are telling phrases. Apply those words to an atheist or muslim apostate being imprisoned (shortly to be executed) in Iran for example. My appeal for clemency, whilst gleefully acknowledged as being without much of a factual basis (precisely BECAUSE of that in fact) is based on an acknowledged presumption of innocence and a great dislike of rules being applied in a very "literalist" fashion. I disagree that summary dismissal is the best punishment, based on the little I know, and I am saying so. All the while acknowledging that I have a) little knowledge of the minutiae and b) no power at all. Neither of which invalidates the point about presumption of innocence or my disagreement with the mentality of "persecution" and the "tyranny of the mob". (Both terms are used advisedly and as placeholders for much longer arguments!).
Cheers
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
