Neodis: A note on double standards
Fri Apr 19 01:25:24 2002
To: all
When you go into an agreement with another person you must find
common ground on which to work. There has to be some sort of ruling
system a set of standards and understandings with which to work
from. Otherwise there is no understanding, a break down of
communication and thus a stagnation of events.

Standards met by one party must be met also by another party for all
things to be fair. A noble person will tell you that this is good
and how it should be. He will also tell you that anything "less" is
bad. That word is in quotes for a reason. It's the perspective of the
person that leads to the term being used. From one viewpoint the
above method is great, the only way, the honourable system. To me and
those of similar, more practical means, it's a tool.

Some call it double standards, some call it cheating some never stop
calling it something, always something. Generally they try to come up
with newer terms or recycle the oldest arguments in the hopes that
people will have forgotten them. They struggle desperately to place
blame and slander upon our names in an effort to keep people from
realizing that they themselves had been foolish.

In a world such as this, one that is inherently evil, you must do
everything you can to obtain the advantage, survival of the fitest and
all that. There is no mercy in the wild and certainly I have been
shown precious little mercy from those who seem to shout loudest.

To have a double standard is to have two standards that vary slightly
when you go into an agreement. You talk and understand the primary
standard, as does your counterpart. What your counterpart does not
understand is your secondary standard, the one that lets you gain the
upperhand, the advantage. If you want the better part of any deal, one
of your best tools, is a second set of standards, one's that meet your
needs, more so then the primary meets your counterparts needs.

Kind regards
Neodis
Keep the FUN alive!

Back