Not now! The neighbors are watching!

[kandrathe]

Becareful. Sematics is not such an easy out.

Sometimes a descussion devolves to semantics because 2 people used different defintions.

Other times(such as when Bill Clinton talked to the lawyers) the sematics issue arises when someone who was wrong looks for a way to obfuscate a mistake. This is such a case.
[right][snapback]110116[/snapback][/right]

Maybe you would produce less conflict in your written communications if you stopped a] trying to make assumptions about others motivations, b] being abusive and insulting, and c] trying to win.

It might be interesting to discuss (politely) whether rehabilitation encompases probation or parole(early release), or whether rehabilitation is a pre-condition of parole. Some here are suggesting that rehabilitation is a pre-condition of parole and indicates the individual has been judged to be capable of returning to the society with a low risk of recividism. I take it you are suggesting that the judgement ("paying for your crime") encompases the parole and probation period. I believe a person can serve their entire sentence and still have probation added after their release. The probationary period would overlap the parole period, and perhaps for our discussion the two concepts are discrete.

Either way, no one needs to be bathed in hot oil for making those types of suggestions. No one gets any prizes here for winning, and no one ever seems to win an argument on an internet forum. People just get tired of arguing and stop writing, maybe driving away potential forum regulars, and possibly frustrating the Lurking audience. It would be nice to have a civil discussion, beat the horse to death if neccesary, then move on to a more interesting discussion where everyones dignity and respect for one another remains intact.