RE: [CH] Snuffin' the flames
Parkhurst, Scott Contractor (PARKHURS@leavenworth.army.mil)
Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:29:55 -0000
> Ah, not so fast, my good namesake.
> A person could conceivably get into a boatload of trouble,
> if it could be shown that the "thief" suffered and the "baiter"
> had good reason to suspect the thief would take the bait.
Greetings, similarly named chilehead!
Your story is good, and I agree justice was done, but it
misses the key part of my post. The "baiter" in your story
never ate a "harmful" cookie, merely a decoy. If the friend
in the office actually *eats* the cookies, it is not bait. It is
the actual eating of the "evil cookies" that puts the blame
squarely on the theif's shoulders.
It's like a situation where the friend has cookies with peanut
butter in them, the thief eats them without knowing this, and
then suffers from an alergic reaction. A perfectly valid
ingredient that just happens to affect some people in an
unpleasant manner. I'm sure most list members would gladly
testify in court as to the validity (ingredient-wise) of our
beloved pods.
Scott... and a damn fine name it is, too... KCK