On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Randall Reetz <rand...@randallreetz.com> wrote: > Yes, such a debate is natural and unavoidable and healthy (even when it gets > nasty). Has nothing to do with the intent of my original post. I am simply > and obviously questioning the integrity of the original intent of the > original post in this thread (coming as it did from a paid employee charged > with customer relations no less). But mostly my comments are general and > concern the slow but steady disregard of integrity as a general concept and > contract of social behavior. Which is, by the way, not in any way related to > the far more common (and morally repugnant) stand-in... loyalty. Loyalty is > just a cleaned up word that stands for fear of social reprisal. As example: > witness the very personal witch hunt that followed my first post. Luckily, I > am (almost) immune. Ultimately, it is truth that matters. We should be big > enough to engage in the larger more meaningful debates that go beyond ego and > tribalism. Courage.
Courage is an attribute that is becoming sadly devalued in the modern world. I would be very upset to see loyalty going the same way, but happily I believe that you are criticising blind loyalty, not true, reasoned loyalty, which should never be regarded as repugnant. Regards, Sarah _______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list use-revolution@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
