On 10/12/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
We can sympathize more, of course, but we need to maintain one standard for all.
Tony replied:
What worries me here is that we patently *don't*. Should we ever block an editor who's clearly demonstrating good faith, is not violating any policy of Wikipedia, but isn't complying absolutely 100% with all the guidelines? Of course not, you say, that's absurd, we'd never do such a thing.
But this is precisely what was done to Maoririder twice within one week of his arriving here.
Why does it happen? What unacknowledged bit of vindictiveness existing in the human spirit enabled this to be done by people who told themselves that they were doing so for the best of motives?
In my religion, doing a bad thing with a "good motive" still counts as a sin. Results count.
Uncle Ed
On 10/12/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
In my religion, doing a bad thing with a "good motive" still counts as a sin. Results count.
Something along the lines of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"?
Sam
Poor, Edmund W wrote:
Tony replied:
Why does it happen? What unacknowledged bit of vindictiveness existing in the human spirit enabled this to be done by people who told themselves that they were doing so for the best of motives?
In my religion, doing a bad thing with a "good motive" still counts as a sin. Results count.
Bad deeds for good motives may be the result of mistakes. They should always be pardonable. There can be many ways that something can go wrong.
Good deeds for bad motives are far worse despite the appearance to observers.
Ec