In article <ZcETzMdlgYYO092yn@islandnet.com>, martinh@islandnet.com wrote:

>The close proximity of the dates and the fact that the 1st one was not
>publicized while the 2nd one was involved planning, the intention
>being to trick the clams into planning their picket counter-measures
>for another day.
>
>I would have to say that is dishonest, yes, but that's just my
>opinion. A simple, unannounced picket, like I will inevitably
>do here in Victoria, wouldn't be dishonest for the mere fact
>of not being announced at all.

If they (the picketers) had said there would NOT be a picket on the 5th then that WOULD have been dishonest. Simply not informing the clams that there was going to be a picket on THAT day was certainly NOT (as you have stated). If the clams were thrown off in their plans for counter-picket activities than that was just an error in their assessment of the situation. They certainly had warning a picket was coming, they should have been ready.

>Let's not debate this, OK?

I think it's important to debate things like this because then people can more effectively look at all sides of a situation and decide for themselves what is honest and what is not. These kinds of debates have certainly helped ME in deciding what is ethical and what is not. This is one reason I read ARS.

Wayne Whitney (a person who sometimes changes his mind because of feedback I've receive)