🚀 go-pugleaf

X-Orig-MsgId: <84ama5$dro$1@news1.bu.edu>

Naomi Gayle Rivkis (nrivkis@concentric.net) wrote:
: >Now, what should he have done - should he have lied and say something

: I thhink he should have politely declined to answer the question on
: the grounds that he's first and foremost a military commander, and has
: to remain officially impartial on certain issues in order to do his
: job effectively.

again, I go by memory, but I thought it was a lecture, not a discussion
in front of the nuclear weapon button. If the lecturer is not entitled
to judge values of various historical events - you will probably agree,
it is no lecture. 

now, if he'd have judged, say, policies of Sadukees or J4J  or Russian
Evsektsiya - noone would care less - even if there are people who would
find positive in any of those groups.

So, it seems that the only problem was that the members of those
groups were present at the lecture. so, does the fact that they
now know of their commander's attitude towards non-O groups will
prevent them from being good soldiers under his command? do all 
soldiers will stop functioning knowing that their commander is
of low opinion of their views?

I am not sure - maybe we can speculate in detail what exactly will 
go wrong

ps again, for flamers, I am assuming that commander's opinion is
a reasonable informed opinion albeit disputable. 


--
Simcha Streltsov		disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simchastr@juno.com		all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon	are equivalent to (-: