Your comments?

[HGGs]

I thought this was an interesting post on a Sun Devil message board:
--------

Keep in mind that ASU also won a ruling in this case:

"In April of 2001, after detailed presentations on both sides, the ASU Procurement Officer ruled in favor of the University. The Cardinals appealed the decision to former President Coor, who referred the matter to the American Arbitration Association for final decision."

The AAA Arbitrator ruling?

This quote is extremely important, the issue is nowhere near as black and white as some of these Bidwill apologists have posted:

"I find, quite frankly, that the language of the 1994 Agreement is reasonably susceptible of more than one meaning. That is, the parties' differing interpretations of the pertinent language of the 1994 agreement, even though they differ, are nonetheless reasonable."

Meaning, simply, even though he ruled against ASU, their position on this matter is reasonable. The initial ruling in favor of ASU further cements the legitimacy of ASU's position.

Bottom line, the Bidwill's do not have a clear-cut, absolute contractual position of right and wrong. Yet, the Bidwills not only choose to sue ASU anyway - in spite of their new publicly-funded stadium, in spite of all the ethical and moral issues associated with suing a state-funded educational institution, they actually had the audacity to claim damages on par with 3 of the NFL's top franchises.

One final note on the hypocrisy of Cardinal fans. Do you notice that when you point out the decades of futility and utter incompetence of the Bidwill's ownership, that Cards fans are very quick to say that they in fact do NOT support the Bidwills? They MORE understand the problems they've created with attracting free agents, with retaining your own talent, signing your draft picks prior to camp, the quality of the draft picks, attracting top coaches, their horrific public relations problems they create in each city, and so on. They agree with most of the criticism of the Bidwills and INSIST that their support of the team is for the players, the coaches, and because they love the NFL and want to support the local team.

Yet...

Yet, this issue has nothing to do with anything other than the Bidwills. If you think they'll use the few million they might collect to acquire top players or otherwise reinvest their profits to improve the quality of the team then I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. Yet, here they are, defending them tooth and nail, the family they say they don't support, the family they agree is utterly incompetent. The hypocrisy is so transparent.

http://www.cactusranch.com/devils/messages/5423.html

 

[Sandan]

Nobody has sued anybody (yet).

Neither does it say that ASU is correct and the article posted from the Tribune suggests that this process of cutting the Cardinals out. Is a long term and deliberate ASU policy.

Comments ?

 

[Krangodnzr]

I really don't understand what is so unethical. The Cards are suing for what is rightfully theirs, and they are suing the Athletic Department not the University at large.

The only party that has acted unethically has been ASU's Athletic Director, Gene Smith. His petty, childish comments, have shown everyone his true colors.

And you call us hypocrites. Buddy, I support my teams. I support the Cardinals, not Bidwill. He is the guy at the top, much like Gene Smith is. I don't want to support Gene Smith, but I will continue to support ASU athletics since it is my duty as a student at Arizona State.

 

[Renz]

HGGS -

Did you read the first line of the article you posted? "The ASU Procurement Officer ruled in favor of the university". A university employee ruled in favor of ASU? What a shock! Of course an impartial arbitrator ruled in favor of the Cardinals, as we all know. Please take your anti-Bidwill prejudice back to ASU's messageboard.

 

[40yearfan]

HGGS---Your incompetence is only exceeded by your great stupidity. We have a lot of ASU grads and current students on this board who have taken the time to look at both sides of this issue before forming an opinion. Then we have you (and I'm supposing you have some connection to ASU, although if you do, you are very poor advertising for a great college), who simply parrots the babble coming out of an athletic department in significant trouble and then has the audacity to come to a pro Cardinal board and try to pass your crap off as an indictment against the Cardinals. This really serves to highlight your many short-comings and complete lack of understanding to situations as they happen in the real world. If you don't wake up and do a real world assessment of events happening around you, you're future as a contributing adult in this world is tenious at best.

 

[ajcardfan]

Can we at least get it straight that the Cardinals have not sued ASU? Rather, arbitration is a means to attempt to avoid a court battle. Both sides have to agree to arbitration.

The penalty decision is going to be far more important than this decision that happened over a year ago anyhow. If ASU had played it smart, they would have settled with the Cards and written a new deal for the short term once they knew the Cardinals would be out of SDS in just a few years. They got bad legal advice. The athletic department should fire their lawyers.

 

[AzCards21]

In Reply to: In what way?? Seems objective*** posted by DevilDon on May 18, 03 at 12:45:04:

Look, we don't want balanced reporting. Who cares if ASU didn't always treat the Cardinals fairly? What's important now is that we don't have to pay up. We need more articles like the one the other day where the writer kept calling them the "Shards".


This is a quote from the ASU site by DevilDon. I don't believe the majority of the ASU Alum feel this way but the most vocal ones probably do.

 

[Krangodnzr]

I just went over to cactus ranch to read what my fellow devils were saying.....all I can say: I really have to question the strength of ASU as an academic institution .

 

[Sandan]

Come on HGGs, if you are going to come into our house and post anti Cardinals stuff, OK.

If you do though you should have the guts to defend your obviously anti-Cardinals position when we challange it.

Come on back if you dare and we will set Krang and Tango on to you

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by ajcardfan
Can we at least get it straight that the Cardinals have not sued ASU? Rather, arbitration is a means to attempt to avoid a court battle. Both sides have to agree to arbitration.

The penalty decision is going to be far more important than this decision that happened over a year ago anyhow. If ASU had played it smart, they would have settled with the Cards and written a new deal for the short term once they knew the Cardinals would be out of SDS in just a few years. They got bad legal advice. The athletic department should fire their lawyers.

Whoops! You are right the Cards haven't sued ASU.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by nidan
Come on HGGs, if you are going to come into our house and post anti Cardinals stuff, OK.

If you do though you should have the guts to defend your obviously anti-Cardinals position when we challange it.

Come on back if you dare and we will set Krang and Tango on to you

Que?

Why all the hostilities towards me lately, Nidan?

 

[Cheesebeef]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
I just went over to cactus ranch to read what my fellow devils were saying.....all I can say: I really have to question the strength of ASU as an academic institution .

My Favorite line from the Simpsons ever: Flanders thinks he and his family have made it to heaven, only upon seeing Homer rowing past him in the Canals of Springfield and says: "Looks like heaven is easier to get into than Arizona State!" - I almost died laughing. Man, for being such a non-discreet stae - The Simpsons love taking jabs at AZ.

 

[HGGs]

You guys are something else.

1. I did not author that message, I cut and pasted it because I thought it was interesting and asked for your comments, what I got in return were 3rd grade playground insults while completely ignoring the issues.

2. "The Cards are suing for what is rightfully theirs" - a valid point was made (which you ignored) by the arbitrator and by the ASU procurement officer - that ASU's stand on all this is 'reasonable' that, maybe, it isn't so definitive what is and what isn't 'rightfully theirs'.

3. "they are suing the Athletic Department not the University at large." You really want to go down this line of thinking? So, student-athletes won't be impacted? So the loss of jobs, teams, and all the other intangibles associated with ONLY suing the athletic department of a University means NOTHING?!?!

4. "And you call us hypocrites. Buddy, I support my teams. I support the Cardinals, not Bidwill. " I didn't call you anything. However, I noticed you failed (again) to respond to the CactusRanch post about saying you don't support the Bidwills, yet in the very same breath jump on their lap with support on their case against ASU.

5. "Nobody has sued anybody (yet)." Yawn. We're talking about semantics here. A formal legal proceeding via arbitration verses a formal lawsuit. I get it. So what.

6. "A university employee ruled in favor of ASU? What a shock!" Translation: "As a Cardinal fan, I will assume and judge that the procurement officer, who I know nothing about, is unjust, unfair, biased and lacks the ethics and morality to judge fairly... how do I make all those assumptions? Based solely on the fact that he works for the University, aren't I a worthy judge of character, I can magically see what's in a person's heart based only on where they work". Nice logic, you're doing great.

7. "Your incompetence is only exceeded by your great stupidity". Wow, all that from a cut and paste, you guys are quite impressive and creative too!

8. "you're future as a contributing adult in this world is tenious at best". Even more of your predictable, classless garbage. By the way, not to sound too incompetent or stupid, but the correct spelling is "tenuous".

9. "This really serves to highlight your many short-comings". So the cycle is complete - ignore the points, asinine personal insults and patting yourselves on the back.

Keep up the great work on your wonderful message board.

 

[Sandan]

Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Que?

Why all the hostilities towards me lately, Nidan?

No hostility at all, sorry didn't mean to imply that. I was trying to be cute and you and Tango are enthusiatic posters

 

[Sandan]

Originally posted by HGGs
You guys are something else.

1. I did not author that message, I cut and pasted it because I thought it was interesting and asked for your comments, what I got in return were 3rd grade playground insults while completely ignoring the issues.

2. "The Cards are suing for what is rightfully theirs" - a valid point was made (which you ignored) by the arbitrator and by the ASU procurement officer - that ASU's stand on all this is 'reasonable' that, maybe, it isn't so definitive what is and what isn't 'rightfully theirs'.

3. "they are suing the Athletic Department not the University at large." You really want to go down this line of thinking? So, student-athletes won't be impacted? So the loss of jobs, teams, and all the other intangibles associated with ONLY suing the athletic department of a University means NOTHING?!?!

4. "And you call us hypocrites. Buddy, I support my teams. I support the Cardinals, not Bidwill. " I didn't call you anything. However, I noticed you failed (again) to respond to the CactusRanch post about saying you don't support the Bidwills, yet in the very same breath jump on their lap with support on their case against ASU.

5. "Nobody has sued anybody (yet)." Yawn. We're talking about semantics here. A formal legal proceeding via arbitration verses a formal lawsuit. I get it. So what.

6. "A university employee ruled in favor of ASU? What a shock!" Translation: "As a Cardinal fan, I will assume and judge that the procurement officer, who I know nothing about, is unjust, unfair, biased and lacks the ethics and morality to judge fairly... how do I make all those assumptions? Based solely on the fact that he works for the University, aren't I a worthy judge of character, I can magically see what's in a person's heart based only on where they work". Nice logic, you're doing great.

7. "Your incompetence is only exceeded by your great stupidity". Wow, all that from a cut and paste, you guys are quite impressive and creative too!

8. "you're future as a contributing adult in this world is tenious at best". Even more of your predictable, classless garbage. By the way, not to sound too incompetent or stupid, but the correct spelling is "tenuous".

9. "This really serves to highlight your many short-comings". So the cycle is complete - ignore the points, asinine personal insults and patting yourselves on the back.

Keep up the great work on your wonderful message board.

I'll answer in a simialr vein.

1) Agreed you didn't write it. But when you paste in into this message board that implies that you agree with it. I have not insulted you att all.

2) No I wasn't igonring that, I was pointing out that the folks with ASU tunnel vision can't seem to get the fact that there may be an argument on both sides. I certainly think there is. But it does seem that ASU is deliberatly trying to win this via the media.

3) I'll say again nobody is suing anybody yet. As for ASU athletics being part of a public University, True it is but you should also consider possible other motives. I'll bet the AD at ASU gets a fairly hefty salary, don't you think that might be on his mind just a bit.

Second from what I can tell missmanagement of the finances of ASU athletics seems to go back for some years. While I am entirely unconvinced yet as to how much if anything the Cards are owed, should not ASU live up to it's contractual agreements ? If this was a financial issue maybe they should have been more accomadating to the Cardinals if they needed their agreement.

What if ASU decided not to pay a jainitorial company they used. Would this be wrong ? Or should the company have to the right to sue ASU for recovery of the debt and possibly damages to discorage it happening again. If this is valid why are the Cardinals different.

4) As this is a subjective opinion of yours I can't really comment. But I don't think most people here "support the Cardinals or the Bidwill family" on this issue. We just want an honest settelment. ASU boosters want an emotional setelment.

5) Ah yes, the "no lawsuit" hair splitting. This again seems to be a concept that the Cardinals cannot win regardless of the facts.

If they actually sued ASU in court then they would be bad. If they try to avoid a court case and resolve the situation out of court with an inpendant arbitrator then they are bad. Seems to me the only solution the ASU boosters would accept is the Cardinals to back down regardless of right or wrong or damage awards (if any)

What ever they do other than cave in is bad.

Most people here want a on honest and objective of the situation (and from what I can tell this includes the Cardinals mgt). ASU seems to want a public and emotionaly charged view.

6) If I buy your point, then I assume you must agree with the Cardinals if they say ASU has violated the contract. Obviously you would not agree to that, but don't you think the person at ASU might be just a little biased.

But ok I don't know them so maybe they aren't biased. Have you met the Bidwill family ? Seems to me that if it unfair to assume that people working for ASU are biased when I havn't meet them. Would it not also be unreasonable for you to assume the Bidwill's are unfair without meeting them ? Turn about is fair play here I think.

And before you say tyhat history shows us how bad the Bidwill's are

a) I don't agree. I have not idea what Mr Bidwill WAS like. But right now he seems lilke a nice man. You see I met him a couple of weeks ago.

b) We have the same sort of evidence of actions about ASU procurment. They ruled in favor of ASU, what a surprise, their actions sure seem biased.

As to you other points, I didn't post those so I won't answer,, but you might consider how annoyed we are at the utterly biased coverage this issue is receiving in the media. No to mention the tunnel vision some ASU alums have.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by nidan
I'll answer in a simialr vein.

1) Agreed you didn't write it. But when you paste in into this message board that implies that you agree with it. I have not insulted you att all.

2) No I wasn't igonring that, I was pointing out that the folks with ASU tunnel vision can't seem to get the fact that there may be an argument on both sides. I certainly think there is. But it does seem that ASU is deliberatly trying to win this via the media.

3) I'll say again nobody is suing anybody yet. As for ASU athletics being part of a public University, True it is but you should also consider possible other motives. I'll bet the AD at ASU gets a fairly hefty salary, don't you think that might be on his mind just a bit.

Second from what I can tell missmanagement of the finances of ASU athletics seems to go back for some years. While I am entirely unconvinced yet as to how much if anything the Cards are owed, should not ASU live up to it's contractual agreements ? If this was a financial issue maybe they should have been more accomadating to the Cardinals if they needed their agreement.

What if ASU decided not to pay a jainitorial company they used. Would this be wrong ? Or should the company have to the right to sue ASU for recovery of the debt and possibly damages to discorage it happening again. If this is valid why are the Cardinals different.

4) As this is a subjective opinion of yours I can't really comment. But I don't think most people here "support the Cardinals or the Bidwill family" on this issue. We just want an honest settelment. ASU boosters want an emotional setelment.

5) Ah yes, the "no lawsuit" hair splitting. This again seems to be a concept that the Cardinals cannot win regardless of the facts.

If they actually sued ASU in court then they would be bad. If they try to avoid a court case and resolve the situation out of court with an inpendant arbitrator then they are bad. Seems to me the only solution the ASU boosters would accept is the Cardinals to back down regardless of right or wrong or damage awards (if any)

What ever they do other than cave in is bad.

Most people here want a on honest and objective of the situation (and from what I can tell this includes the Cardinals mgt). ASU seems to want a public and emotionaly charged view.

6) If I buy your point, then I assume you must agree with the Cardinals if they say ASU has violated the contract. Obviously you would not agree to that, but don't you think the person at ASU might be just a little biased.

But ok I don't know them so maybe they aren't biased. Have you met the Bidwill family ? Seems to me that if it unfair to assume that people working for ASU are biased when I havn't meet them. Would it not also be unreasonable for you to assume the Bidwill's are unfair without meeting them ? Turn about is fair play here I think.

And before you say tyhat history shows us how bad the Bidwill's are

a) I don't agree. I have not idea what Mr Bidwill WAS like. But right now he seems lilke a nice man. You see I met him a couple of weeks ago.

b) We have the same sort of evidence of actions about ASU procurment. They ruled in favor of ASU, what a surprise, their actions sure seem biased.

As to you other points, I didn't post those so I won't answer,, but you might consider how annoyed we are at the utterly biased coverage this issue is receiving in the media. No to mention the tunnel vision some ASU alums have.

Very good post Nidan!

As a student of ASU and a Cardinal fan, I truly want the best for both. I hope that this can be worked out in a way that's fair to both parties.

 

[40yearfan]

Looks like I got under your skin a little bit HGGs. Good. That was my intention. You came back and tried to offer an explanation, but since you don't have a defensible position, you just repeated the basic text of the overly biased report you first posted.<p>In your second statement (2), the arbitrator is saying both parties have interpreted the contract in a different manner and that both parties have done so in a reasonable manner. However, he found that the preponderance of the evidence pushed his decision in the Cardinals favor, so the Cardinals are right -- period. You can't have 2 people with different ideas as being right. One has to be right and one wrong. The Cardinals are right---accept it.<p>(3)--If ASU AD is losing jobs and student athletes are being impacted, it's ASU's AD fault, not the Cardinals. ASU shouldn't have made the original agreement if it wasn't able to live up to it's end of the deal. They owe the Cardinals money and it should be paid.<p>(4)I don't know about the rest of the guys on this board, but I support the Bidwills and I always have. <p>(5)If you have any knowledge of the law, you would know there is a tremendous difference between suing someone and having an arbitration hearing. An arbitration is an informal hearing which has to be agreed to by both sides before this hearing can be initiated. It is not considered a legal proceeding as such and is a much fairer method of resolving disputes because the legal issues don't have to be the deciding issues. It's more common sense than legality. You don't even have to have an attorney if you don't want to. Hopefully, you are aware of a lawsuit and what that entails and are bright enough to now realize the difference.<p>(6)This doesn't ever require a response. The Cardinals also had Mike Bidwill rule on this and he found in the Cards favor. Doesn't that sound asinine. Just as much as your statement that ASU personnel found in ASU's favor.<p>(7)That wasn't a cut and paste. Just the plain truth.<p>(8)Having spent a lot more time in this world than you and having dealt with people with your same attitude; that is an observation from real life that I have applied to this situation. You have a problem.<p>(9)Now that I have answered you point by point, I'm sure that you will realize that you do have short-comings and will try to implement changes in your life to overcome these short-comings.

 

[Tangodnzr]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Krangthebrain
Que?

Why all the hostilities towards me lately, Nidan?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by nidan
No hostility at all, sorry didn't mean to imply that. I was trying to be cute and you and Tango are enthusiatic posters

LOL. No offense taken here. You need a little "enforcement" Boss? You just send them anti -Cards bozos my way, and don't worry none...they'll get taken care of.

 

[HGGs]

40yearfan, I have short comings?

I see that your many years on this planet have rendered you into a mean, bitter, impotent old man.

Sad.

Don't bother replying. This is the last time I will visit your message board.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by HGGs
40yearfan, I have short comings?

I see that your many years on this planet have rendered you into a mean, bitter, impotent old man.

Sad.

Don't bother replying. This is the last time I will visit your message board.

 

[ajcardfan]

Originally posted by HGGs
40yearfan, I have short comings?

I see that your many years on this planet have rendered you into a mean, bitter, impotent old man.

Sad.

Don't bother replying. This is the last time I will visit your message board.

WAIT! Before you go, what does HGG mean?

Hmmmm.......

I have it, "Have Girl Gonads" !


Has to be, with that weak response as you leave with your tail between your legs!

 

[WizardOfAz]

Originally posted by HGGs
40yearfan, I have short comings?

I see that your many years on this planet have rendered you into a mean, bitter, impotent old man.

Sad.

Don't bother replying. This is the last time I will visit your message board.

What you think HGGs.

Somebody comes on to the Cactusranch board with posts like this and they get banned......

 

[Krangodnzr]

Originally posted by WizardOfAz
What you think HGGs.

Somebody comes on to the Cactusranch board with posts like this and they get banned......

But we have more class than those people, and despite what some say, we respect different opinions if they are logical and well thought out.

Not all opinions matter. Only opinions that are educated and objective matter.

 

[40yearfan]

Originally posted by HGGs
40yearfan, I have short comings?

I see that your many years on this planet have rendered you into a mean, bitter, impotent old man.

Sad.

Don't bother replying. This is the last time I will visit your message board.

<p>Objective accomplished. Anyone want to talk about the Cards?

 

[JasonKGME]

1. I did not author that message, I cut and pasted it because I thought it was interesting and asked for your comments, what I got in return were 3rd grade playground insults while completely ignoring the issues.

1 - 3rd grade playground insults not withstanding, you posted the original thread as a way to incite a discussion/argument, giving you the benifit of the doubt I will assume discussion and thus go over the rest of your points

2. "The Cards are suing for what is rightfully theirs" - a valid point was made (which you ignored) by the arbitrator and by the ASU procurement officer - that ASU's stand on all this is 'reasonable' that, maybe, it isn't so definitive what is and what isn't 'rightfully theirs'.

2 - Actually if you read the finding by the Arbitrator he clearly states that while both stands could be reasonable he discovered that ASU's stand is based on what the new people holding the office believe, but the people who were in charge at the time of the agreement understood the meaning to be that the Cards interpretation was correct, so while the new regime may "feel" that the langauge of the agreement should be the way they want it, that was not the meaning of the agreement at the time it was made.

3. "they are suing the Athletic Department not the University at large." You really want to go down this line of thinking? So, student-athletes won't be impacted? So the loss of jobs, teams, and all the other intangibles associated with ONLY suing the athletic department of a University means NOTHING?!?!

3 - No, I do think it means something, #1 it means the athletic department as represntitives of the University did the wrong thing, and must own up to doing the wrong thing, not just throw out to the public "ohhh people are going to lose thier jobs over this". I understand people are going to lose jobs over this, and I think that is regretable, however the lose of jobs is more the responsibility of ASU and the athletic department in particular for choosing to do something they knew was wrong and is now coming back to bite them in the butt. They need to accept responsibity for thier actions and say "we messed up and regretably because of our errors people will have to be laid off" Guess what that just happened to my company, we got into a purchase agreement with another company, they backed out and my boss told the people he let go that it was his fault for not covering his butt properly that cost them thier jobs.

4. "And you call us hypocrites. Buddy, I support my teams. I support the Cardinals, not Bidwill. " I didn't call you anything. However, I noticed you failed (again) to respond to the CactusRanch post about saying you don't support the Bidwills, yet in the very same breath jump on their lap with support on their case against ASU.

5 - Not only do I support the Cardinals I also support Bidwill when he is right and I also rag on him when he or the team are wrong. Now question is as an ASU fan can you do the same? ASU is in the wrong on this and need to own up to that fact.

5. "Nobody has sued anybody (yet)." Yawn. We're talking about semantics here. A formal legal proceeding via arbitration verses a formal lawsuit. I get it. So what.

5 - But this is very important semantics, lawsuit means your not willing to be reasonable, arbitritaion means you are willing to let an independant person with nothing at stake to determine who is in the wwrong and who is in the right. The Cardinals were more then willing to let an independant person decide if thier case had merit, and guess what they did.

6. "A university employee ruled in favor of ASU? What a shock!" Translation: "As a Cardinal fan, I will assume and judge that the procurement officer, who I know nothing about, is unjust, unfair, biased and lacks the ethics and morality to judge fairly... how do I make all those assumptions? Based solely on the fact that he works for the University, aren't I a worthy judge of character, I can magically see what's in a person's heart based only on where they work". Nice logic, you're doing great.

6 - This is the purpose of an arbitrator, because it is someone with no investment in the situation. I don't care who you are, if something is up for "personal determination" no matter who you are you are going to side with your friends/company/or self, no way tdo you as a employee go back to your boss and say "hey we screwed up lets pay" when you can say "hey, according to this vague terminology we could be in the right so I think we don't owe the money". Sorry but I would feel this way if a Cards employee had said the cards deserved the money and ASU said no and took it to an arbitrator.

7. "Your incompetence is only exceeded by your great stupidity". Wow, all that from a cut and paste, you guys are quite impressive and creative too!

7 - no comment this was an asinine statement and frustration probably more then anything at having to constantly deal with people who only believe what they want to believe rather then actually look at the facts and form an opinion off of that.

8. "you're future as a contributing adult in this world is tenious at best". Even more of your predictable, classless garbage. By the way, not to sound too incompetent or stupid, but the correct spelling is "tenuous".

8 - see 7 above

9. "This really serves to highlight your many short-comings". So the cycle is complete - ignore the points, asinine personal insults and patting yourselves on the back.

9 - i personally didnt avoid the points, and no personal attacks, but here is a question I would like you to answer, in what way, shape or form is ASU right in this matter other then a "moral standpoint"? I constantly hear the only reason the Cards are wrong is because this could cost ASU athletics some jobs, or sports programs. I want to know why that should make the Cards close up shop and move out? How are the Cards in the wrong other then a "moral" concept?