Agree ... some of the responses to the OP's post were funny in a way. On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:
> Fair enough. > > Not directly relevant to the morality issue but FWIW it occurs to me that > the OP would have been in much better shape if he had written Darren > privately. I was not even aware of the post until this brouhaha erupted, > and > then out of curiosity I went back and read it. Others are probably in the > same boat. > > Charles > > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu] On > Behalf > Of Sam Siegel > Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 12:56 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu > Subject: Re: Deleting post > > On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 8:52 AM, Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote: > > > No, John said "no action that is *a fortiori ineffectual* can be > immoral." > > (Emphasis added.) In other words, if the action has little or no > > effect, what's the harm? Darren has not erased the post from history, > > only from a single archive. > > > > Charles > > > > As a general statement (which is what John seems to be making) it does not > take into account magnitude and nature of action. In the specific case of > Darren deleting the post the magnitude is low is and it is also of an > uneventful nature. One can make the argument an fortiori ineffectual > attempt to rob someone (mild example here) is still immoral even if it was > ineffectual. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO > Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
