Mulfish:
ChessSpawn:
Mulfish:
But Brian, wouldn’t you say that Mr. Alexander thought that Truong and Polgar were “right” and thus helping them was a noble cause even if done by illegal means? That would seem intuitively obvious to me. Randy’s “Road to Hades is paved with good intentions” seems to fit that situation, Ellsburg’s, Snowden’s etc. A lot of times people will do wrong things because “the ends justify the means”.
I suggest that you read Alexander’s plea elocution in the court record. I think that will disabuse you of that notion. Polgar’s self-aggrandizing egoism as a noble cause? I think not.
I do hope you aren’t arguing that Ellsberg put paving stones in the path to Hell. He didn’t. Snowden’s revelations have, IMO and that of most informed people, helped the cause of individual privacy rights in the face of an overreaching NSA data collection program. If anything, I’d say that he tore up a few paving stones in the road to Hell that were put down by the NSA and CIA.
I have neither access to nor desire to read his elocution. However, the question is not whether they represented a “noble cause”, or even if he realized they didn’t by the time of his elocution. At the time he actually committed the acts, I think he believed they were a noble cause and thus Randy’s phrase applies. Now that said, I think one could make the argument that when a whistleblower goes public from the start they are more likely to actually believe they are serving a noble cause, while if they try to hide their acts they are more likely to be aware that they really shouldn’t be doing this.
Think and believe whatever you like. You have no way of evidencing his “good” intent. Perhaps you think his desire to help Truong and Polgar take over or subvert the USCF was a good intention. We’ll have to disagree, if that’s the case.
Two final points from me and then I’m done on this issue. Alexander was no whistle-blower. I warned him well before he did the hacking that he was going down a dangerous path with Truong and Polgar. He made a flip reply to me that he’s likely thought about since.
ChessSpawn:
Mulfish:
ChessSpawn:
Mulfish:
But Brian, wouldn’t you say that Mr. Alexander thought that Truong and Polgar were “right” and thus helping them was a noble cause even if done by illegal means? That would seem intuitively obvious to me. Randy’s “Road to Hades is paved with good intentions” seems to fit that situation, Ellsburg’s, Snowden’s etc. A lot of times people will do wrong things because “the ends justify the means”.
I suggest that you read Alexander’s plea elocution in the court record. I think that will disabuse you of that notion. Polgar’s self-aggrandizing egoism as a noble cause? I think not.
I do hope you aren’t arguing that Ellsberg put paving stones in the path to Hell. He didn’t. Snowden’s revelations have, IMO and that of most informed people, helped the cause of individual privacy rights in the face of an overreaching NSA data collection program. If anything, I’d say that he tore up a few paving stones in the road to Hell that were put down by the NSA and CIA.
I have neither access to nor desire to read his elocution. However, the question is not whether they represented a “noble cause”, or even if he realized they didn’t by the time of his elocution. At the time he actually committed the acts, I think he believed they were a noble cause and thus Randy’s phrase applies. Now that said, I think one could make the argument that when a whistleblower goes public from the start they are more likely to actually believe they are serving a noble cause, while if they try to hide their acts they are more likely to be aware that they really shouldn’t be doing this.
Think and believe whatever you like. You have no way of evidencing his “good” intent. Perhaps you think his desire to help Truong and Polgar take over or subvert the USCF was a good intention. We’ll have to disagree, if that’s the case.
Two final points from me and then I’m done on this issue. Alexander was no whistle-blower. I warned him well before he did the hacking that he was going down a dangerous path with Truong and Polgar. He made a flip reply to me that he’s likely thought about since.
No disagreement with your last point. The last thing I’ll mention is that you are misstating my position. I do not think his desire to help them was a good intention. I have been saying all along that HE THOUGHT IT WAS. You seem to be imputing my assertions as to his views to be my views. I totally disagree with him on this and on everything he did. On that, at least, I am confident we agree.
Mulfish:
I do not think his desire to help them was a good intention. I have been saying all along that HE THOUGHT IT WAS. You seem to be imputing my assertions as to his views to be my views. I totally disagree with him on this and on everything he did. On that, at least, I am confident we agree.
Those who do something bad usually believe either (a) they are really doing a good thing, even if others disagree or (b) they are choosing the lesser of evils. The exceptions would probably include those who are in the grip of some obsession or are simply out of their minds. How many people explicitly INTEND badness?