#C=A and Timothy Leary
10 messages in this thread
Marlene–
Do you actually believe that you would LIKE or APPROVE of the people who write
the software you own??
I don't think I would like some of the poets whose poems I read and enjoy. How
about movie stars? Shall we boycott movies with actors and actesses whose
views we dislike.
Leary actually made a LOT of sense. I wonder how many of these yahoos have
actually READ one of his articles? Many cultures have used psychedlic drugs in
spiritual quests. That American kids (and others) would abuse themselves and
others with them should have been predictable, but that in itself does not
negate what Leary was saying. But even if the ignoramusi were correct and
EVERYTHING he said was wrong and mad, boycotting his work on that grounds would
still be insane. If the software is bad, boycott it. Otherwise, judge work on
its own merits. It might be a good idea to READ an article first, or to USE
some software first. But that might deprive us of the joSelf-Righteousness,
eh?
// Jim
Jim, we are in total agreement – I wasn't implying that anyone should boycott
the software or CBM all I meant is that if someone feels so strongly against a
particular authors' policies, politics or whatever then just don't buy the
software. Being against the company whose computer the software is written for
is ridiculous.
. Happy Holidays. Marlene
Hi Marlene–
Glad that we agree on this one. I was kinda proud of the forum's response.
In genereal, it seems like Amiga forum members are not rising to the right-wing
bait that was dangled in front of us.
Happy Holidays.
// Jim
Right Jim, as I said to Jim Moran I think there are far better Amiga things to
report on instead of ridiculous garbage like that.
Marlene
Jim:
I see nothing wrong with 'boycotting' a product on the basis of strong
variance with the practices of the company or its leading individuals. I do
not accept the idea that if a product is really good that I should ignore ALL
other considerations when making a purchase decision. OTOH is don't tend to
'cut off my nose to spite my face' based on rumor or necessarily on past
conduct of business. People and business can change (both directions
obviously).
I agree with Don that what Leary was promoting was pure garbage and the
guise he was operating under was even worse in its damage than what he was
promoting in the first place. It appear that Don and I differ only in the
degree of responsibility we attach to Leary actions and maybe in the belief
that is held that he might have mellowed a bit. 73, bill
Well, Bill, while I certainly think you can boycott anything you like, I do not
agree with your assessment of Leary. As I said elsewhere, many cultures use
psychedelics for spiritual reasons, and to dismiss an idea you don't like as
"pure garbage" is always dangerous UNLESS it is an idea based on hatred.
NOTHING in Leary's career suggests to me that he is hate filled–which is much
more than can be said for some of the self-righteous folks who would deny him a
living if they could. (And THEN what? I wonder. Since he could not write,
publish, speak, etc, could he serve hamburgers? Not if the boycotters got wind
of it. Crime and drug pushing would be all that was left to the poor wretch.)
Also, to equate Leary with South Africa is a moral obscenity in my view. He
may be misguided (he certainly seems silly to me often) but he is not evil,
malevolent, etc. And to blame him for drug abuse is asinine. He never
advocated use of cocaine that I know of, yet that is now the drug of choice for
some. In a country where alcohol and tobacco are supported to the extent they
are by the government I find the "anti-drug" types who exclude those drugs
hypocritical in the extreme.
And again, I must ask which of the published articles by Dr. Leary you have in
mind? Or is this mostly a reaction to media stuff?
In any case, I doubt that either of us would have much use for the software in
question, though as someone here noted, it would probably be at least funny and
not take itself too seriously.
On this one, it looks like we will have to agree to disagree.
Happy Holidays.
// Jim
Jim,
[wild and enthusiastic applause/cheering]
Doug
Thank you, Doug. I am glad I am not alone.
Jim,
Because I choose not to put money into the pocket of a person whom I
have 0 respect for, and whom I cannot relate to on any level and who has openly
encouraged hundreds of thousands to commit mental suicide, does that make me
one of the 'ignoramusi'? I think not. It makes me a person of free choice who
choosed not to do something. You all are free to do what you want, so am I and
I don't want to buy any software from Mr. Leary. It's as simple as that.
I also think there are thousands of folks who refuse to go to Jane
Fonda's movies. Does that make them ignorant?
Don
Don–
I would say that the people who refuse to go to a Jane Fonda movie are
literally "ignor-ant" of her. Personally, I always thought Joan Baez's
politics much more sensible (she condemned BOTH sides) than Jane Fonda's. I
think Jane Fonda is silly as a political thinker. She is also arguably our
finest cinema actress from time to time.
If you really plan to give your dollars only to companies and individuals
that meet your political tests, you will either end up with a huge savings
account or play a game with yourself by "ignoring" the truth about the people
you do business with. You boycott a Jane Fonda movie and go instead to see
one whose cameraman is, let us say, an anti-Semite. What have you gained?
// Jim