mutilated misquotes
from Bruce Marshall's classic prose
may follow:
" > I'm curious: what was your thinking that led you to post this?
" I didn't have any particular purpose... just thought it was an
" interesting take on the situation.
Fair ball...
" In particular, I was dumbfounded that people (used loosely) were
" shooting at the rescuers. I could not see a single reason for this.
Ted Ozolins put it very well:
Lets see, they've lost everything, nothing makes any sense and the world
around them is gone.
" What did they stand to gain? The shooting at the police station
" seemed insane to me. Again, where is the gain?
Strikes me you may have pointed towards your own answer - insanity
may not consider a balance of gains/losses.
" There must be some explanation for all of this crazy behavior.
There is. The article you posted hinted at some of it. But there
are very serious problems involved in establishing and then in
validating that explanation as it might apply to this specific
situation. For one thing, all behavior is individual and one nut
case (or a few nut cases) potting off at people who think they are
trying to help him/them proves nothing by itself. Some way is needed
to get from the individual to the general and that way is not the
nightly newscast. For another thing, all we have to go on is
hearsay, and I include here the broadcast media including television.
Overall, imo, we are a very long way from scientific rigor in any
aspect of our understanding of individual behaviors in the
face/aftermath of Katrina.
R
--
http://www.quen.net
"Gold needs no endorsement, it can be tested with scales and
acids. The recipient of gold does not have to trust the government
stamp upon it, if he does not trust the government that stamped it.
No act of faith is called for when gold is used in payments, and
no compulsion is required." -Benjamin M. Anderson
_______________________________________________
[email protected]
Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
