>--All of which is even more besides the point since who would disagree
>with what you've just said to begin with? The plain obvious as a
>'response'...
>
>Steve
uh, you disagreed. duh. i just told you that, if you can apply that reasoning to that situation, then the majority of USers apply your exact reasoning in terms of whether they are unforgiving or not. they will accept structuralist explanations, but for some people they do not cut them any slack, just like you don't cut any slack to the letter writer. the issue isn't about statistics and probabilities, it's about their moral values which you apparently share, but not always, which just makes you look like the thread title.
kelley