>>>>.Ever charged/billed a client slightly more time than actually worked?
>>>
>>>
>>>I would not exactly call this a victimless crimes...
>>>
>>>In fact, I am not sure there is such a thing as a "victim-less" crime. Somebody always has to pay the price....
>>
>>John,
>>
>>IMO there are NO victimless crimes. The offender always damages their own conscience in the process, regardless of whether or not someone else was involved.
>>
>>Several years ago I found a #20 dollar bill in a delicatessen on the floor. I picked it up and asked the two fellows who were there if it was theirs. I could see the one fellow thinking, "This guy will never know", while he said it indeed was his @20 dollars. I knew it wasn't but was interested in seeing his reaction. I was sorely disappointed.
>>
>>I also threw out some $20,000 of software I had accumulated many years ago and I sure slept well afterwards. *g*
>>
>>Thanks for standing up for a principle like this.
>>
>>Best,
>>
>>DD
>
>There are indeed no victimless crimes, but only if the laws that define "crimes" have been reasonably drafted.
>
>An excellent example is traffic speed limit laws. Most areas have roadways where the average traffic speed is significantly above the posted limit, and has been for years without any MVAs or fatalities. By definition, all motorists travelling at that average speed are criminals. Thousands of "crimes" are committed there every day.
>
>On many of these roadways, it is actually dangerous to travel at or below the posted speed limit. The hazard caused by such action clearly outweighs any conceivable damage caused by the too-high average speed.
>
>There was a celebrated case in Toronto, Ontario some time ago. There is a major, well-designed highway system (the 401) across the top of the city. Posted maximum speed is 100 km/h, but actual average speed is 120-130 km/h. One day a motorist was singled out of the "herd" and ticketed for travelling at 120 km/h. The next day, he enrolled 2 buddies, and they travelled line-abreast on the 3-lane main section at exactly the posted speed limit. When the backup behind them reached 7 km long, the cops hauled them over and ticketed them again, for obstruction of course... but they sure got their point across.
>
>The only reasonable traffic speed limit determinor I've ever heard of is the Australian system, where roadways are monitored for a long time period, and limits set at the speed that 85% of motorists travel at or below.
>
>"There are no victimless crimes" is true only if the laws used to define "crimes" are perfect and omniscient. In most cases they come pretty close - we pay the lawyers enough, I should hope so - but they can no more be perfect than anything else. It is every citizen's duty to question these laws where they make little sense.
>
>As the late, great Isaac Asimov once said, "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."

Well, as I mentioned before the value of one's own conscience is IMO an important issue to think about.

Anyone can trivialize an issue to make some point but that strikes me as all too often being not much more than an attempt to excuse one's own behavior, which interestingly enough is a clear indication of that violated conscience. IOW, if someone goes to great length to excuse their behavior that's prima facia evidence of an admission of a broken internal law. If they really didn't care they would make absolutely no effort to correct or amend anything.

Reminds me of the young girl, looking at herself in the missor saying, "I just hate myself because of this or that." Well, if she really hated herself she'd say, "Gosh, this is SO GREAT that I'm fat!" (or whatever) *g*

Best,

DD

PS - Let's be careful not to stray off the FoxPro path, ok? I sense you and I could have an ..er.. interesting set of discussions. *g*