So it begins..

[Jared Smith]

Let me say that as long as Linux attracts people who think "free"
means "to take" instead of "to give," this letter is on topic.

>Doesn't it seem a bit inconsistent to you that you are complaining
>simultaneously about people NOT being honest and about being TOO
>honest? 

Not at all. Think about it. Thieves boast to each other. They steal, and then 
boast; the boasting can _seem_ like honest confession but in fact it is a form 
of denial that they did anything wrong. I'm asking them to stop doing so 
publically as if KCLUG were a group of thieves, for it is not.

How do I know thieves boast to each other? I used to be a thief. I have a police 
record to prove that I know what I'm saying about how a thief thinks. I also have a 
lifelong regret of my actions, and a desire to keep others from "unknowingly" 
stealing. It does not concern me that the standard I raise is high. I believe it is 
imperative that Linux have a reputation for honesty, and I will consistently raise 
that standard, even when others find fault in my effort.

>Calling this stealing makes stealing seem okay to those who see
>nothing wrong with asking for a gift more than once.  Please find
>some way to describe what you dislike about this that doesn't
>include the concept of 'theivery', so that you don't devalue the
>legitimate use of that concept for acts of force which deprive others
>of their property.

Okay. First, I do not accept your implied equivocation on the word "ethics" to 
assert that I personally dislike something. I have appealed to ethics as a higher 
principle that we can all agree on, and you are attempting to make it personal by 
asking me to describe "what I dislike." In fact, I dislike nothing. Ethical standards, 
however, "dislike" equivocation upon original intents. For example, Logitech never at 
any time intended for people to get 12 of their mice. That _should_ be obvious
to anyone. If it is not, then your ethical standard is not very high. However, a
central component of any ethical standard is that it will gracefully defer to a higher
standard if the higher one is presented. If you study intents, not legalistic 
interpretations of actions, but raw intents, you will find the truth.

Now let me answer your request. Ethics dislikes equivocation upon original
intents. In a frame where physical force is used, this is called thievery.
However, in a frame where only deception is used, this is called hustling.
A hustler is one whose advanced knowledge of the system makes him a 
thief instead of what he should be if he were honest, a teacher.

>If the dishonest deny their dishonesty, they're only still being dishonest
>If they do not, then you need to find some other word, do you not?  You
>can't say that someone is dishonest and honestly tells everyone, friend
>or stranger, about their dishonesty.  Once you fix these inconsistencies,
>you'll be in a better position to further your own agenda, whatever that
>is.

See "boasting" above. This is another equivocation on the word "honest" 
which I never actually made. Study what I originally wrote and you will see that 
there were no equivocations in my own writing.

>>Dishonesty happens to everyone; denial is plotted by a few.
>
>People choose to be dishonest; it doesn't ever just 'happen'.

Since all people are dishonest, and since this is neither the time nor 
the place to discuss repentance, which is the only sensible consequence 
of accepting your premise above as true, therefore, I will hold to my premise 
as being true, howbeit with the attribute of being a generalization. Generalizations 
are permissible, unless of course they aren't, which means we need to move to a
philosophy or ethics discussion list, because this is a LUG list.

>Please forgive this outburst.  I don't usually post much to this list,
>but the above pushed one of my buttons. :)  I care very much about
>honesty, and couldn't bear to see it distorted like this.

Honesty cannot be distorted.

-Jared