[photo-3d] Stereoterrorism

[John W Roberts <roberts@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It seems like it was about one or two years ago that there was an extended
discussion on P3D about stereo "bargains", where quite a few people gloated
about having bought a working Realist for $5 at a yard sale from an elderly
widow (or comparable situations). I believe I commented at the time that I
didn't consider it to be something worth bragging about, but in general there
were very few objections - it seemed to be the consensus of the list that
if a person didn't know the value of what they were giving up, that was just
too bad for them, and that it was only good common sense to take advantage
of such a situation.

Now there seems to be significant "us versus them" element - when one of "us"
inadvertently donates a valuable stereo camera, the person who wound up with
the camera at a bargain price is suddenly a reprehensible scoundrel. Such a
duality is perhaps an inherent part of human nature, but we ought to bear it
in mind when considering the "moral perfection" of our point of view.

There's certainly nothing wrong with sympathizing with Grant's terrible
misfortune, and offers to donate money toward getting the camera back are
highly commendable. Advice on what legal recourses Grant may want to consider
appear to be completely appropriate, as well as suggestions on how one might
appeal to the buyer's better nature.

But suggestions of gangster tactics and indimidation to compel the buyer
to give up the camera are totally out of place. (Even if the
perpetrators will later claim that they were just joking, a joke with
an edge in it, in this context, *is* somewhat of a threat.) It's fine to
discuss composing a message (perhaps one that could be endorsed by a large
number of people) to appeal to the good will of the buyer, but talking about
"inundating him with messages" is (whether intentionally or not) intimidation -
what's next? phone calls at 3:00 am? And a person who asks "do we know where
this guy lives?" and comments "sometimes you've got to turn toward vigilante
justice" is hardly qualified to judge what constitutes an 8-year precedent for
doing the wrong thing.

In my opinion, threats of going outside the scope of the law eliminate
whatever moral high ground there may be in this situation. Grant himself
appears to be completely decent and upstanding about this situation, which
has to be very difficult, given his terrible loss. I certainly hope he is
able to get the camera back.

Disclaimer: These are my opinions, based on what various posters wrote, not
what's in their hearts, which I have no way of knowing directly. If for some
reason what they wrote does not accurately reflect the way they feel, then
I would respectfully suggest, in a serious matter such as this, that they
take more care in their writing.

John Roberts


 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/