sandbaggers: Re: Who's more moral?

Re: Who's more moral?

Kenneth W. Crist Jr. (kayuucee@cfar.umd.edu)
Tue, 19 Sep 1995 10:35:28 -0400

On Mon, 18 Sep 1995 09:31:53 -0700, you wrote:
>
> I'd much rather work for Wellingham -- he's not so likely to shoot you.
> His moral failings are on the grand, international scale: choosing to
> ignore some atrocity for the sake of political expediency.

Sorry, but I'd much rather work for Burnside than Wellingham.
Neil is willing to go to the wall for his people. Reference: Tom Elliot
in "At All Costs", Mike in "A Question Of Loyalty" and the ultimate,
Willie in "Decision By Committee".
Whereas, Wellingham will write off a subordinate for political
expediency. He only agreed to sign the paper in "Special Relationship"
because of Neil, not because Wellingham cared what happened to Laura.
She was expendible.
Agents are expendible to Neil when their loss will accomplish
some good. They are expendible to Wellingham when they are a liability.
It is like being in Star Fleet and having the choice of being
under Kirk or Picard. Kirk is more likely to get you killed, but if you
are in trouble Kirk would defy the gods themselves to get you back.
Picard would hold a staff meeting and shrug his shoulders.
Or for B7 fans: you are Dr. Plaxton in "Star Drive" and you have
a choice of ship commanders, Blake or Avon. Who would you pick?

Ken Crist