Walter
<also drowning in the CoV baptismal waters>

Michelle Anderson wrote:

In the not-too-distant past, a situation like the one being discussed in
The Law and What Might Have Been and Important Notice threads would have
demanded a duel.  The loser would never get to come back and peace would
be restored.  What of the loser's possible contributions?  Life offers
us a lot of blind corners, and choices must be made.  Every choice
contains a loss of possibility.

As a side note, see
http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=
2003-07-26&id=3341

"If you are looking for some fun, and have a research grant to spend,
try this. Visit an American university, bump into random students in the
corridor and loudly call each one 'asshole'. Then measure their
reactions."

<snip>

"From the earliest days of the American Republic, honour played a vital
role in the political process. The famous duel between Aaron Burr and
Alexander Hamilton is only the most notable example. There were many
others. Even Abraham Lincoln once accepted a challenge to a duel, though
it was never actually fought."

<snip>

What do you all think of the concept of being honor-bound (as defined in
the article)?   What is an alternative to a showdown?  And is the
alternative as decisive and useful, or just less boorish?  Is this
possibly the crux of our divide?

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>

--

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.

"Reminding you to help control the human population. Have your sexual partner spayed or neutered."