Re: Jane, you ignorant...just kidding.

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Of course he's not directly responsible for their abuse, but in the eyes of
> many, including the victims who's feelings should be of utmost concern to
> Pete, he has directly contributed to the industry, and has crossed an
> ethical line that shouldn't have been crossed.
> But, if you think "attacking" the victims premis is the solution, than all 
> I
> can say is I'm glad you're not giving advise directly to Pete.
> He needs to first acknowledge their feelings, accept them, and apologize to
> them for any hurt he may have caused.  *Then*, he can explain himself.
> This is not the time for Pete to try and punch his way out of the 
> situation.
Well, I don't really know all the details to this, and Pete will have to 
make the decision of how to handle it.  I'm assuming that he's innocent of 
intent to do any harm, and you're thinking that he's been very arrogant and 
willfully ignored the moral consequences of giving money to a child 
pornographer.

I think you can acknowledge people feelings without taking the blame for 
them, and a certain amount of apology is appropriate, but that danger exists 
that people will continue to attack you.  To use a worn example, how much 
good did it do Clinton?  Other examples?  The Germans apologized for the 
Holocaust.  How much good has it done them?  Apology is a statment that one 
is responsible, and (I gather) the first necessary step in a lawsuit for 
reparations.

keets

_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail