Print

Print


Nobody can be held responsible of what"happens", only of what one does  
or don't do, says or don't say: the consequences, effects "happen" in  
spite of all kind of discourse about responsibility. You know the  
story about the butterfly in the Amazone generating a typhoon in the  
Chinese sea. Suppose, the butterfly had a conscience: would suicide  
not be her only option? And what about the stronger consequences of  
not flying any more?

Kind regards,

Luc


Op 9-jan-11, om 15:25 heeft russell_c het volgende geschreven:

> Thanks Luc -- if I do your home-work (or is it my home-work?) -- in  
> any case, will you share the responsibility and risk that something  
> else might happen than would otherwise happen if I did not do as you  
> propose?
>
> ;-)
>
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:04 PM, Luc Hoebeke  
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Russell,
>
> After a "risky" walk on 50% icy, 50% muddy pathways and having  
> passed the ordeal without harm to myself or my wife, not to talk  
> about fanatic cross-bikers in the same environment, I join the "case".
>
> 1. Making a differenece in accountability and responsibility as I  
> wrote in my article about responsibility in networks at least has  
> the advantage to differentiate between the ethical dilemma and the  
> "law".
>
> 2. Regarding Solomon, I can refer to my commentary of the Decalogue  
> referring to : thou shalt not give a false testimony regarding your  
> neighbour. Which makes it impossible to judge a "case" without the  
> testimony of the people involved, here at least B and D. This  
> permitted the wisdom of Solomon, who fortunately was not perverted  
> by the "case studies" a la Harvard Business School.
>
> 3. Which comes to my criticizing the tool "case" which apparently  
> was used by D and fortunately fired back on him so that he can  
> become a bit wiser not to put "cases" to a virtual public. There I  
> refer to what I wrote in Making Work Systems better about the  
> dynamics in the value-systems domain, the domain of politics and  
> judgments. What D and you also did was a too quick jump from the  
> concrete and specific situation, which is the anecdote at hand, to  
> the general and abstract quadrant without passing through the  
> necessary contextualizing and specific concrete area. (Figure 6-2 of  
> my book and its commentary).
>
> In relation to Frank's do-gooders remarks, I only want to do some  
> good on the case by giving you some home-work :-)
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Luc
>
>
>
>
> Op 9-jan-11, om 14:38 heeft russell_c het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Just to clarify your comment -- D posted his views using the case  
>> study (basically as given although worded differently) and then the  
>> reactions started.
>>
>> D was strident in rebuttal and it all ended up mirroring itself  
>> mostly!
>>
>> Again, a dance of shadows really.
>>
>> D's stridency was that he was not strident.
>>
>> Not really focused on D's motives ... that is where the pack went.
>>
>> Was he right in his stand -- or at least not-wrong (entirely)?
>>
>> rc
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 9:23 PM, Stefan Wasilewski  
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On D's motives; strident views post a drubbing on the web usually  
>> means his original self-responsibility feelings weren't that good  
>> and he's found someone else to support him as a crutch even though  
>> those ideas are badly grounded.
>>
>>
>> On 9 Jan 2011, at 12:50, russell_c wrote:
>>
>>> I though I saw A in there somewhere.
>>>
>>> Anyway, my take is this: if you are in a reductionist paradigm  
>>> then you have no choice but to come to a conclusion such as you  
>>> have.
>>>
>>> However, if your world view is not reductionist -- or not so  
>>> wholly reductionist (see Stafford's first few minutes on Aristotle  
>>> in Javier's video) then things are not so clear.
>>>
>>> In this 'not-entirely reductionist' paradigm, I contend that the  
>>> only condition is that not everything can be wholly reductionist,  
>>> or by definition 100%. 100% does not exist on this earth except as  
>>> an aspiration (for the unwell usually).
>>>
>>> It seems to me D is holding out on a strongly constructivist  
>>> argument and likely to end up being given hemlock!.
>>>
>>> rc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Frank Wood <[log in to unmask] 
>>> > wrote:
>>> Hi Russell.
>>> I was talking about B the trainer and D the kite flyer only and as  
>>> far as I can see I didn't get them mixed up.
>>>
>>> As you say the core issue is responsibility and we can only be  
>>> responsible for our own actions not others. That maybe not the  
>>> legal case but sure is the common sense case!
>>>
>>> Yes D is right to highlight the problem of interfering do gooders  
>>> as long as he does not try to dilute his responsibility. In other  
>>> words he should stress that he is responsible for his actions and  
>>> not B.
>>>
>>> If you are driving a car and crash cos you are distracted by one  
>>> of  your passengers then you cannot blame the passenger! Even if  
>>> in law the passenger could be accused of distracting you that  
>>> cannot absolve you of blame (yes I say that non PC word "blame")
>>>
>>> It certainly stimulated discussion! :-)
>>>
>>> Frank
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9 Jan 2011, at 12:06, russell_c wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank,
>>>>
>>>> You voice is well represented in the debate.
>>>>
>>>> I think you may have got you A,B, and Cs a bit mixed along the  
>>>> way, but yes, the core issue is whether D can claim some shared  
>>>> responsibility with another adult B who was there only to earn  
>>>> money -- and the 'expert' advice unsolicited was incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> If it had been correct information then maybe D would have  
>>>> reacted differently. Perhaps D thought wtf and who is this idiot.  
>>>> Perhaps D should have ignored the noise. Perhaps the noise was a  
>>>> young child in his mind?
>>>>
>>>> All other public risks were in hand as D had checked that and was  
>>>> in fact in a practice session to do what he was doing. In  
>>>> previous trials the safety release device was activated. This  
>>>> time it got away. VERY tight timing involved.
>>>>
>>>> Look I think we can assume D is not trying to dodge the issue of  
>>>> being a dill (although others may see it that way). Rather, he is  
>>>> perhaps trying to highlight (in the forum) that B (and those in  
>>>> her position) has to be very careful. The same thing could be a  
>>>> personal trainer in a park, or yelling out to a young woman  
>>>> nervously trying to turn right across oncoming traffic with a  
>>>> baby in the back seat. I think it is close to public nuisance.  
>>>> Perhaps the next D could be a rather aggressive user of the  
>>>> health services! I suggested that the next D scenario could be an  
>>>> American tourist (there are plenty of Swiss and Germans down for  
>>>> the winter break) and s/he would be (of course playing on the  
>>>> archetype) far more likely top be legally orientated --  
>>>> especially of s/he had broken their neck or something..
>>>>
>>>> The intent to submit the case study was to stimulate discussion  
>>>> on risk of dealing with dangerous performing show ponies on a  
>>>> busy beach -- not a learner in a quiet isolated space-time zone.  
>>>> But the response was so strong a note book and pencil just had to  
>>>> be taken out. The whole thing got hijacked due to the 100% issue.  
>>>> I suspect that may have suited some interests.
>>>>
>>>> Russell
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Frank Wood <[log in to unmask] 
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> I would say that the responsibility rests entirely with D.
>>>>
>>>> 1. If he was aware of his actions he would KNOW that the bar was  
>>>> the right way up
>>>>
>>>> 2. If he was concentrating properly on what he was doing he would  
>>>> not allow himself to be distracted.
>>>>
>>>> When I used to play tennis people could be doing anything around  
>>>> the edge of the court and I would not notice. However the mind is  
>>>> always primed for danger signals and clearly B's comment was not  
>>>> a danger signal as I have already said he would have known the  
>>>> bar was the right way up.
>>>>
>>>> It appears that B is a control freak and cant' resist interfering  
>>>> and also I suspect there was a show off element to c in her  
>>>> intervention.
>>>>
>>>> As a general rule of thumb it is best to not offer help to people  
>>>> unless you are asked. Sometimes when people offer me unasked for  
>>>> help I'm tempted to snap at them and say "Did I ask for your help!"
>>>>
>>>> So the responsibility was entirely A's and he is wrong to try and  
>>>> dilute the blame by saying it is shared responsibility.
>>>>
>>>> Now if he had gone up to B and shouted at her etc then B could  
>>>> not complain as this would not have happened if she had not  
>>>> interfered.
>>>>
>>>> Each person is responsible for their own actions, shared  
>>>> responsibility is a cop out term.
>>>>
>>>> That is not a personal attack but rather an obvious observation  
>>>> to anyone who accepts the idea that we ALL have to accept  
>>>> responsibility for our own actions.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the outrage on the forum may be cos people felt that D  
>>>> was trying to wriggle out of the fact that he was 100% (as was  
>>>> put on the forum) responsible for his actions as B was 100%  
>>>> responsible for her own actions.
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to know what B's comments were (if any).
>>>>
>>>> Looking at it from the viewpoint of Primary Cause, it could be  
>>>> argued that it was B's fault as if she did not interfere then  
>>>> none of this would have happened. However that ignores the fact  
>>>> that if D was properly focussed on what he was doing this would  
>>>> never have happened.
>>>>
>>>> If kite flyers can't be focussed o;n what they are doing then why  
>>>> are they flying kites in public places?
>>>>
>>>> IMO D has given a lot of ammunition to those that want kite  
>>>> flying on beaches to be banned. Another reason maybe for the  
>>>> outraged reaction on the forum as the members possibly felt that  
>>>> he was doing them no favours.
>>>>
>>>> Frank
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 9 Jan 2011, at 08:46, russell_c wrote:
>>>>
>>>> One for the legal beagles.
>>>>
>>>> There is no legal matter in this -- it is just a case study  
>>>> (based on actual events) in which I would like to clarify one  
>>>> fact: shared responsibility and risk.
>>>>
>>>> I only need an answer to feel more confident in my discussions  
>>>> with others on this case study.
>>>>
>>>> I don't need legal opinion -- but I just would like to know  
>>>> whether in general principle my point about some degree of shared  
>>>> responsibility is valid -- or at least a grey area needing some  
>>>> arbitration.
>>>>
>>>> The contention is between two world views: one that holds a 100%: 
>>>> 0% 'blame' paradigm; and one that holds a shared risk paradigm  
>>>> somewhere (but not explicit) in the range of 99%-1%.
>>>>
>>>> The debate is not legal (although it is ultimately a legal issue  
>>>> if pursued - which is not in this case): it is philosophic.
>>>>
>>>> It is just a case study but I'd like to know more clearly whether  
>>>> I'm correct or not. I hold the shared responsibility view (around  
>>>> the 80:20 range). The principle is the focus -- not the actual  
>>>> values.
>>>>
>>>> Situation:
>>>>
>>>> A -- a small company selling kitesurfing equipment and providing  
>>>> training services via 'sub contractors' who ply their trade on a  
>>>> public beach.
>>>>
>>>> B -- Trainer walking on public beach with C in a training session.
>>>>
>>>> C -- personal being trained by B through a contract with A.
>>>>
>>>> D -- Independent person on the beach in an activity with some  
>>>> physical risk to D (only). No risk to others by virtue of  
>>>> ensuring no other public are close by in direction of wind and  
>>>> potential risk zone if event fails.
>>>>
>>>> D has no relationship with B or C. (and in fact never met)
>>>>
>>>> D has some historical commercial relationship with A.
>>>>
>>>> B is wearing a top wetsuit vest that subtly identified her as a  
>>>> trainer for A.
>>>>
>>>> B and D have never met before although D has observed her in the  
>>>> distance training others.
>>>>
>>>> The location is in D's local beach area less than 0.7km from  
>>>> house. A, B & C most likely travel to the location from elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> There is no suggestion of fowl play or poor intent by any party  
>>>> -- merely poor communications, timing and lack of understanding  
>>>> of shared risk at that time (by B) in a public place with respect  
>>>> to D (and others in same situation).
>>>>
>>>> At a critical moment in D performing an act (e.g. launching a  
>>>> large kite), B (with C in tow) calls out to D from behind (and to  
>>>> the side a touch) that the "bar is around the wrong way" or words  
>>>> to that effect. D did not realise B was there or only slightly  
>>>> noticed from corner of the eye just moments earlier. B & C were  
>>>> walking along a beach where small sand dunes blocked D's view of  
>>>> their approach.
>>>>
>>>> This causes D to hesitate at a critical moment of launch, look  
>>>> down and check the bar (held in the hands to control the kite via  
>>>> 4x25 m strings.) D finds the bar is not around the wrong way. D  
>>>> wonders what B is talking about and replies that he basically  
>>>> 'knows what he is doing' (or at least that the bar is correctly  
>>>> held). The kite lifts abruptly and D is slightly off balance due  
>>>> to B's interruption. D is pulled to the ground , hurts ribs and  
>>>> breaks kite string. D contends that this may or may not have  
>>>> happened without B's uninvited interruption to his private  
>>>> activities on a very deserted public beach (i.e. no risk to  
>>>> others). No one will ever really know.
>>>>
>>>> No other party is hurt or was put in danger. D was learning the  
>>>> ways of the kite. Perhaps the kite was not positioned well with  
>>>> respect to wind. However previous self launches by D had been  
>>>> performed and worked ok. Winds were a touch stronger than perhaps  
>>>> wise to launch in by D -- but not excessive.  Position of kite  
>>>> with respect to wind could have been better. There was risk but  
>>>> calculated (maybe poorly in hindsight).
>>>>
>>>> B & C walk off.
>>>>
>>>> D recovers from the spill and packs up equipment and returns home  
>>>> via the premises of A (close by) where the equipment was  
>>>> purchased and where original training was provided (but not by B).
>>>>
>>>> D claims that B (as A's employed contractor/employee) is partly  
>>>> responsible for the event due to interrupting D without  
>>>> invitation and by sending incorrect 'expert' information at that  
>>>> time (the bar was not around the wrong way).
>>>>
>>>> D's original 60:40 shared risk view includes a belief that risk  
>>>> is also to A by virtue of employing B (i.e. commercial law etc).
>>>>
>>>> D and A agree that 70%:30% (D:B) is reasonable.
>>>>
>>>> A agrees to sell D new strings for large discount just above  
>>>> cost. A & D agree this is fair. (basically reflecting the 70:30  
>>>> split)
>>>>
>>>> D suggests to A that he advise young B that next time she should  
>>>> be more careful about approaching members of the public while on  
>>>> duty. D suggests some skills training for B so that opening  
>>>> communication can be more polite and in the form of a question --  
>>>> e.g. "Excuse me, can I assist..." (or words to that effect).
>>>>
>>>> A week later in the same place, under similar conditions (but  
>>>> lighter winds and with better kite position etc due to advice  
>>>> from A to D on how to do it better), B walks past and offers to  
>>>> help launch the kite for D. There are no hard feelings and no  
>>>> other communications (D and B are approximately 30 metres apart  
>>>> due to length of kite strings). Standard 'ok' & 'thanks' hand  
>>>> signals are shared by D & B.
>>>>
>>>> There is no issue. Both A, B & D seem to have learned something.
>>>>
>>>> Some weeks later D relates this scenario in a public forum which  
>>>> is discussing risk on public beaches in respect to 'Show Pony'  
>>>> behaviour that places the public at risk. Public outrage with the  
>>>> 'sport' is rising in the wider community due to bad high risk  
>>>> behaviour by certain experienced people.
>>>>
>>>> D receives a public lashing by many people in the small Internet  
>>>> community (but not all) for the suggestion that risk was shared  
>>>> in this complex situation of concern outlined above. Heated  
>>>> debate and bullying attack on D ensue over an extend period by a  
>>>> strident section of the Internet fraternity who believe that  
>>>> 'Blame' is 100% with D as a 'fact'. No one claims to be a legal  
>>>> expert -- it all looks and sounds like opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Question: Can D claim that risk was shared in that situation of  
>>>> concern -- or at least that it is a grey area that would need  
>>>> arbitration etc to resolve?
>>>>
>>>> D's issue is not with B or A.
>>>>
>>>> Rather it is with the mindset of the rabid Internet forum  
>>>> attackers who seem unable to consider the situation and who  
>>>> continue to attack D at a personal level from the 100% blame  
>>>> position. It appears to be a very strong blame culture. This  
>>>> community may also have higher insurance premiums to pay if they  
>>>> find out they do share risk in some public-private interaction  
>>>> (especially when commercial trade is going on and a 3rd party is  
>>>> affected). Many of these 'voices' are probably trainers as well.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of D raising this scenario was to develop open  
>>>> discussion. A lot of noise was developed (charge & rebuttal) but  
>>>> not much information or answers. The original Show Pony situation  
>>>> was completely left discussed and unresolved. The Show Pony  
>>>> problem seems to have been raised numerous times before and  
>>>> remained a hot contentious and unresolved item.
>>>>
>>>> The kitesurfing community claim to be extremely concerned with  
>>>> self governance and not being pinned down with outside control  
>>>> and regulations "like elsewhere in the world". Certain 'voices'  
>>>> in the Internet fraternity claim this is because of good work by  
>>>> the local association of members which also provides public  
>>>> insurance to members and requires members to agree to indemnity  
>>>> conditions that seem to protect all office holders and all  
>>>> members form challenge.
>>>>
>>>> After further analysis of the situation (of the internet  
>>>> community reaction) D concludes this is largely because the local  
>>>> context is in a time warp and that soon there will be public  
>>>> outrage and clamp down as it has occurred in other parts of the  
>>>> world..
>>>>
>>>> Any comments or hints on the original 100% vs shared risk  
>>>> responsibility issue most appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing will be quoted or ascribed. Email to me 1:1 if more  
>>>> appropriate.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks anticipation.
>>>>
>>>> Russell
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
>>>> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum  
>>>> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org 
>>>>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html 
>>>>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html 
>>>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>> For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org
>>>>
>>>> For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go  
>>>> to:  www.platformforchange.org
>>>>
>>>> METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html
>>>>
>>>> Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>>
>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
>>>> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum  
>>>> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org 
>>>>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html 
>>>>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html 
>>>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
>>> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum  
>>> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org 
>>>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html 
>>>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html 
>>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
>>> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum  
>>> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org 
>>>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html 
>>>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html 
>>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
>> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum  
>> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org 
>>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html 
>>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html 
>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
>> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum  
>> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org 
>>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html 
>>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html 
>>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum  
> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org 
>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html 
>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html 
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For  
> more information go to: www.metaphorum.org For the Metaphorum  
> Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to: www.platformforchange.org 
>  METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html 
>  Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html 
>  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For more information go to: www.metaphorum.org

For the Metaphorum Collaborative Working Environment (MCWE) go to:  www.platformforchange.org

METAPHORUM eList Archive available at - https://listserv.heanet.ie/ucd-staffordbeer.html

Archive of CYBCOM eList available at - http://hermes.circ.gwu.edu/archives/cybcom.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~