🚀 go-pugleaf

In concordia.general * Huggy * <hugs@radiotelephone.net.PAS_DE_SPAM> wrote:
: <<<<<<===========--M--A--S--A--T--A--K--A----N--O--D--A--============>>>>>>

:  De 9 Dec 1998 21:40:46 GMT,
: <74mqou$si6$3@newsflash.concordia.ca>, 
: ewd_tang@ece.concordia.ca 
: a �crit dans le message (Re: *** Human Experiments @ McGill University
: ***)...

: ====================

:>: I just gave the examples if you can do whatever with "voluntary"
:>: workers or "volunteers" if they sign forms and they comply.   You
:>: obviously do not like to learn history.
:>
:>If they get paid, they aren't volunteers.
:>If they get a bonus to handle the nitro glycerine, that's danger pay

: then the students used for LSD experiments were NOT volunteers
: according to your standard point since I would expect that they were
: paid around $5 per session or so at that time of year.


They were voluntary subjects, and paid for their services.
If the pay was not commensurate with the hazard level, that is something
different from calling them volunteers.

The railway workers were paid, it may not have been good pay, there may
have been massive discrimination, but they were not volunteers.
If they get a bonus for handling nitro, it would be danger pay. It was not
commensurate with the hazard of handling the nitro, but it was still
danger pay for dangerous work.


What you are comparing are two totally incomparable things, especially
since the students didn't see some guy from the work camp die in the
tunnel the day before.