Saturday, November 18, 2006

Getting it Wright from an Early Age

Okay, I think I've established the point that it's virtually impossible for me to bring up Tom Wright on this blog without a junior highishly overdone pun...nevertheless, that's part of who I am :-) I thought I'd demonstrate just how seriously I take the responsibility of parenting by posting a picture of me recently reading Noah a "bedtime story." As you can see this young scholar in training is far more engrossed in the current volume than his post-grad dad.


However, don't let his apparent interest deceive you; he only sat still long enough for me to read him about a page and a half. After that his attention could only be maintained through other means...


I've been out of the blogosphere for a little over a week due to internet problems (those dang neighbors need to upgrade their connection). Things seem to be back on course now, and I should be back to regular blogging (whatever that is) soon. Posted by Picasa

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

that's cute!!!


~Caitlyn~

dwilson said...

Believe it or not, there's an ethical discussion to be had in this post...
We get our internet connection from some unknown neighbor as well (wireless). Recently, a fellow Christian at work challenged me on this habit. He saw it as an issue of integrity (that I didn't have it by using something else's internet). It never, ever before occured to me and Annalisa that this could be considered as stealing. She says that just b/c something's free doesn't mean it's stealing, that they could secure it if they wanted and it's the same as going to Panera to use theirs. So...
If your conscience is clear so far and you want to keep it that way, ignore this question. But ours is now asking questions (mainly b/c we want to keep our testimony at work), so if you have thoughts, let us know.

NWMihelis said...

I tend to follow Annalisa's line of reasoning here. In addition, since the signal's not working anyway it may not be an issue :-) But then if you're reading this comment, it must have been working...

smlogan said...

you're right - i don't believe it;
not on nate's blog...
but since i was not so long ago accused of having no integrity, i'd love to sympathize.

for sake of the other guy, i'll say that i've been in his position before - on this, and other similar issues - and have never been taken seriously...for that reason, it is a blessing even to see you and annalisa considering your position. if my commendation was worth anything to you, i'd give it.

for my part i wouldn't see the scenarios as possessing equal ultimacy (a la tom dailey).
panera is a business, and offers internet access as a perk for the customer (willingly and intentionally...although, judging by their prices, i'm not sure we're not paying for it). if they want to let people use it in an unlimited way, that's their prerogative. they can budget for it, and shouldn't expect any help in paying for something they're advertising as free.

i imagine that whoever's internet you are using would likely take your money if you were willing to give it. of course, many people have told me that they don't know whose signal it is...

perhaps if you know, you could offer to contribute, or even do it anonymously (since it is accessed that way). if you can't figure out who it is, then i'm with your wife - it is on them to be preventative.

Tim Barker said...

Wireless...my comment remains it is easy to prevent if desired. My current wifi is open and free now that I pay for it. I see it as my way of giving back to the community. :)

Mihelis- Noah made it thru a page and a half without losing attention. Perhaps we need to reconsider inviting Noah to book club every week, since he's almost keeping up with you in pages read!

smlogan said...

nice barker,
you moral philanthropist...

Anonymous said...

Hi Nate, I have a comment and a question/thoughts. First the comment, you guys are soooo cute! Love,Mom/Nana (I now have two personalities! :-) Cute comment about the book club Mr. Barker! Of course being his Nana, I am not surprised!:-) Now my question/thoughts not as a Mom/Nana but as a Commentor on a Blog (I guess that makes for yet another personality, hey, at least I will never be lonely! :-). . . If the person didn't want someone to use their wireless then it was said they should secure it, perhaps this is true but does that still make it right for me to use it? If Zales leaves their store unlocked, does that mean I can help myself to the jewelry, it isn't my fault they didn't lock the store, after all, if they didn't want me to help myself they would have made it more secure . . . all's fair in wireless and jewelry, right? I don't know, just some thoughts. Happy Thanksgiving to all and to all a great "Turkey Day"! :-)

Luther's Stein said...

Barker, nice call on Mihelis' reading habits.

dwilson said...

Thanks for all of your advice. I haven't changed my habits in using the internet. I don't know who has the signal, so i cannot contribute to his/her cause. We need more people like Tim who see it their ministry to give back to the community.

Tim Barker said...

Mom M/Nana M

I do not wish to compound the issue or cause an ethical issue for anyone else (as I am happy to hear that Dave has done what is right for his conscience). I would like to mark the difference from your Zales analogy. The difference is right of proximity versus possession.

In your example of Zales I might have a certain declared right of proximity...I am near Zales. It is unlocked. I find the opportunity to steal to apparent to miss. The internet however while equal in proximity (It's right here for the taking), does take up my possessive space. The waves are in my dwelling. No one asked me if they could reside here. They are not limited in any mean to the home next to me (which would be like Zales dropping off some diamonds for display in my living room without permission).

This isn't even like cable b/c I would have to make an effort to attain the cable. The internet comes into my apartment (at the time) w/o necessary means of containing it. Hence, I would conclude that in my proximity and possession allows me ethical freedom to partake.

robertlhall said...

sorry for a bad joke, but I can't help it...
these free wi fi discussions sound like some people's explanation of the atonement. limited or unlimited; sufficient for all but intended only for some, etc.

dwilson said...

Tim, I am totally following you on this one. In our case, I put no effort in to obtaining the internet. I simply turned on my computer and a connection took place. It was no work of my own...a free gift, as it were, and for that I am thankful.

NWMihelis said...

Nice point Barker. And this from a guy who pays for it.

smlogan said...

look at rob hall trying to stir up the atonement debate...chill, you four-pointer!

barker,
i understand where you are coming from, but if we grant your case, perhaps it is the essence of the commodity itself which should determine the action?
for instance, you would not have to adjust your proximity to obtain a wallet that was dropped outside of your car door at the mall. would it be an ethical right for one to possess the item?

i'm sure we might agree on a certain action if there was identification and such...but if there weren't, and there was no likely means of returning it to its owner, would you take it or turn it in (to mall security, police, etc)?
and hypothetically, if one failed to check, or never found i.d., would the prescribed syllogism hold?

NWMihelis said...

I think following Barker's discussion it would actually be more akin to somebody dropping a $20 bill in my car window while parked at the mall. A wallet would suggest ID (I'm not sure who Linksys is) and NEAR my car is different from broadcasting a signal IN my home. I don't go out and sit on the stairs (unless it's REALLY weak in the house :-) to surf, I'm currently sitting on my couch.

Bob said...

Nate,
This might help :)

http://www.cantenna.com/

I use to own one of these bad boys......

Tim Barker said...

Nate,

Yeah I think you got my proximity v. possession argument right on. The money placed within something I do possess is the point. Not just near, nor just based on effort.

Ah...Ethics. It is always cut and dry 'til we get into the "what-ifs."

smlogan said...

i suppose placement would argue for intentionality, but i guess what i was trying to hit on was the fact that internet, cable or other such services are only intended for those who are paying customers. the providers are not hoping to provide service to those who are benefitting from their paying customers (although i'm sure they know it happens).

i guess in this case, i would revert back to annalisa's original contention - that is, perhaps the ethical responsibility is not so much with the 3rd party as it is with the customer...who should protect the integrity and purpose of the provider by securing their network to prevent access to nonpaying users.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Nate, good point Barker, and I also agree with Logan's comment concerning Annalisa's oringanl contention, it certainly isn't cut and dry, black and white . . . Nate's mom :-)

Dan Lerro said...

Some very questionable ethics going on here...

Anonymous said...

Hey, I recently added a news widget from www.widgetmate.com to my blog. It shows the latest news, and just took a copy and paste to implement. Might interest you too.