Cedric Chang wrote:

> I think you are over-stating my annoyance... It is not like I throw
> myself around the room. ; or foam at the mouth.

Maybe; I don't know. But the fact that the way I understood your message
had about nothing to do with mine, even though it was a reply to mine, had
something to do with this comment.

>>> And my primary axiom is to preserve the maximum freedom for the maximum
>>> number of people.
>> 
>> How will you ever have a chance of getting near that axiom (or goal) if
>> you get so annoyed by other people that your chance of understanding
>> them (and what they think is their freedom) seems rather small? Without
>> that understanding, you may end up trying to preserve your own,
>> personal freedom, rather than the maximum freedom for the maximum
>> number of people. It takes a lot of patience, understanding and
>> sensibility to do anything for a larger number of people.
> 
> Not really, you just let them do what they want.  I used to be a control
> freak ; I have largely moved away from that.  It is really easy when you
> quit worrying about what other people are doing as long as they do not
> infringe on your space or others.  

How does this relate with "drawing a line and act on it" WRT corruption?
Usually, corrupt acts don't affect you directly. 

>> (It's rather easy to use one's own personal judgment on a case-by-case
>> basis. No definition necessary; you just judge however you want, do
>> whatever you want, and that's it.
> 
> Which is the way it should be

I can understand this. But then, you're doing it all for you, and not for
"the maximum number of people". In order to do that, you have to bring a
few of these in, and their opinions.

"I do what I want" is probably the only ultimate truth. But it's not
self-evident, and it doesn't maximize anything for a maximum number of
people :)

Gerhard

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist