Mr. Rogers Neighborhood

(note: to my fellow Canadians and those around the world who were taught a more British approach to grammar, I apologize for the spelling of the title, and caving in to spell check yet again in this comment. Can you spot the two words that sold me out?  We now return to our regularly scheduled post)

The recent case of a woman suing Canadian telecom giant Rogers Communications for revealing her affair has caused a great kerfuffle amongst mouth breathers and moralists alike.

"Outrage" they huff with all the wisdom of a circa 1600's  New England mob of torch bearing commoners.

"She was having an affair, so she gets what she deserved" the chorus opines.

I urge you to read the story here, but more importantly, I urge you to read the verbiage below from the Commenterati.

I, for one, (and literally, I may be the only one) support the lady, and I hope she wins. I cannot abide her conduct, but I applaud her struggle. She is right, and the mob is wrong.

She had a private agreement with Rogers, which they allowed to be altered by a third party without her permission. So lets drop the cheap moral judgments, and consider what this case is really about.

It shocks me that a cheap  rush to judgment can override a larger principle, or perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe most people do support the right of Rogers to have their account hijacked by anyone who claims to live at the same address.

But I don't.

Rogers hacked her account inadvertently, and they should pay dearly for it, learn a lesson, and move on.

As for the majority of you, I'll see ya at the stoning.

http://www.goyestoeverything.com