From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: Sanctity of relationships
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:44:13 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.193809.26756@ultra.com>, stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix) writes:
> In article <1992Apr13.195158.28914@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
> >In article <1992Apr12.063451.9244@ultra.com>, stcroix@ultra.com (Bill St. Croix) writes:
> >> 
> >> Oh....so basically you don't care if she is involved with someone or not,
> >> nor do you care what level of involvement there may be.
> >> 
> >> Forgive me, but it sounds like a scenario of "Get some...at any cost."
> >
> >You're the one who equates "getting to know her better" with
> >"get some ... at any cost".  That says something about you.
> 
> No...I suppose Steve wants a relationship with this woman who he SAW and
> is interested in.  What interest does he have in this person?  How well
> does he KNOW this person?

Sorry, I lost the original posting where *Steve* said he had never
talked to the woman, never encountered her before, never became
friends or casual acquaintances with her and then felt an attraction...
I lost the original posting where Steve saw her for the first time
walking out of the church with her new husband, and grabbed her
and took her away in his car.  Or maybe you're just extrapolating
and making assumptions about Steve and filling in blanks in the
story to make him look bad.  Still says something about you.

> In general....people that try to woo another away, do so based only on
> feelings of attraction.  Not LOVE!

I don't have a clue how you could know this for a *fact*.  In my
experience it's people who have been friends or acquaintances for
awhile who want to become closer.

>  
> >>(analogy of telling on a co-worker who is stealing and gets fired deleted)
> 
> >On the other hand, you didn't make the boss fire the worker.  With
> >the information at hand and taking into account company policy, the
> >boss chose to fire the worker rather than overlook the stealing.
> 
> Oh...then it's the bosses fault for the firing and not mine?  No...it is the
> company's fault because they have such an "outrageous" policy??

I guess I don't see what's so outrageous about a company not wanting
to have an employee who steals from them.  If my housekeeper was
taking my food without telling me or stealing my socks, I would
fire her.  If I stole from you, would you want some sort
of redress, some sort of assurance that it wouldn't happen again?

> 
> >Your analogy is perhaps farfetched and it makes the case for the
> >opposite point of view than the one you espouse.  Also, you leave
> >out the aspect of
> >choice on the part of all concerned.  The worker chose to steal,
> >analogous to developing a shakey relationship with the company.  You
> 
> Lots of people steal....even though they don't have a problem with the
> company.  So, your analogy doesn't hold well, that he is developing a
> shakey relationship with the company.  The only shakey relationship he is
> developing is with YOU who saw him/her do the stealing.

Relationships are 2 way streets.  What a radical thought, eh?  From
the COMPANY'S point of view, the relationship is damaged because it
can not trust this person.  The boss acts as the company's representative.
Lot of people have extramarital affairs, and it doesn't bother them.
From their point of view, their marital relationships are intact.
However, their spouses don't like it, and from their point of view, the
relationship is damaged.  Do you understand that relationships have
1 or more parties, and the feelings of all parties are important in
the quality of the relationship?

> >So, you perhaps had impure motives, but others had choices to make,
> >and perhaps encouraged by your actions, something you have no way
> >of knowing unless they tell you, they made their own choices.
> >The boss could have decided to give the worker another chance but
> >didn't.
> 
> So, my "impure" motives are OK...because something else "good" came out
> of what I did?

They're not "OK", just not as important to others and the outcome
of their situation as you think.  You acted against your own principles,
and the consequences of that happen to you.

 Two wrongs don't make a right.  You could have decided to
> go to the employee and tell them that you wouldn't tell this time if they
> returned what they took, but if it happened again you would report it.

Who are you to forgive their action?
They didn't wrong you, they wronged the company.  Besides,
if you cover for them and they are found out anyway, you could get
fired for covering for them.  Assuming that what they took was of
consequence (or they wouldn't have been fired for doing it), this is
a pretty shakey step on your part that could cost you your job, too.

> You have two basic choices.  You can tell
> your boss and more than likely have the person fired (and then you slip 
> into their job) or you could go to the person and tell them to cut the 
> crap or you are going to tell the boss.  For the analogy impaired:
> 
> You do whatever you can to get the woman (job) no matter what.  You had a 
> choice that would "spare" everyone involved.

Not so.  The company is not spared - it can't recover its past losses
or take steps to prevent future ones.

> Personally, the best analogy I have heard so far is the hammer and the
> window.  It does it from an inanimate point of view (which a relationship
> sort of is).   Kudos to that analogy.
> 
> >Yes, yours proves the opposite of your own point.
> 
> Where did I prove the "opposite" of my point?  You seem to have completely
> left off the part of my analogy that showed that you had a personal gain
> in the matter.  That TOTALLY changes the analogy.

You seem to have left off the part where other people have choices,
too.  They will not do X because you did Y.  I don't know where you
have worked, but I have been working for almost 18 years, and I have
seen employee theft handled in a variety of ways.  The point is that
others have choices.  That is the most important part of the story
and the point you overlook.
The thief had a choice about doing something that he knew the
company wouldn't like if it were found out - he chose to develop
a relationship that the other party - the company - would regard as
flawed.  You had a choice about whether to tell or not.  For impure
motives, you chose to tell.  It is not that that was a morally pure
or correct choice for you, it's that your motives just aren't that
important to anyone besides you.  The boss aka as the agent of the
company chose to fire the person.  Many times there are a range of
options - reprimand, restitution, overlooking it, dismissal - and
the boss chose dismissal.  That is a choice that is affected but not
determined by your action.  It is not affected by your motives, just
your information.

<wife slept with someone else >
> How was *I* supposed to *KNOW* that she wasn't being satisfied?  Afterall, 
> she told me how great it felt and that she felt like she was going to
> *explode* when we made love.  :+))  (had to brag a little bit)  The only
> way this problem crept up was because she slept with the other guy and 
> now all of a sudden, it is my fault because *I* don't satisfy her NOW??

The question is best put to the woman, if you really want an
accurate answer.  Why did she sleep with the other guy?  Why did
she lie to you?  From your point of view, the problem came up when
the other guy slept with her.  From her point of view, there could
have been a problem for a longer period of time.