Subject: Re: [FFML]why Ranma, was Why not Shampoo?
From: KIT KIT KIT KIT KIT WESTNEAT WESTNEAT WESTNEAT <westneat@copper.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 5/8/1997, 5:03 PM
To: Anthony Woo
CC: Wade Tritschler <tritschl@malun1.mala.bc.ca>, Webdragon <kmark@odyssey.on.ca>, fanfic@fanfic.com



On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Anthony Woo wrote:

On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Wade Tritschler wrote:



On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Webdragon wrote:

There are times when his behaviour has made me think he dos not deserve
any of his fiancees, Kodachi is not a fiancee.

        Neither is Shampoo.  Only Akane and Ukyo are his fiancees,
since both of them were affianced to Ranma by Genma.

Gee, let's see.  Ranma didn't have any say in either engagement.  A
father, even in Japan, cannot technically engage you to anyone.  Akane had
no say in her engagement.  Ukyo, maybe, but more likely she just went
along with it.  Now, Ranma, through his own stupidity and thoughtlessness,
got himself engaged to Shampoo.  Now, no involvement for Akane or Ukyo and
carelessness for Shampoo.  So, in your book carelessness is a defense huh.
Well, in mine it isn't.  He managed to get himself engaged to Shampoo and
I consider it just as valid as the Akane or Ukyo engagement.

Now I'll be the first to admit that Ranma is stupid and thoughtless, but
this is going too far.  You can't blame Shampoo's engagement on him!
he didn't know about the amazon law, stupidity and thoughtlessness imply
that he knew about the law and ignored it.  He didn't.  It wasn't
carelessness it was ignorance and that _is_ a valid defense in my book.

To quote an old saying "Ignorence is no excuse for the law"
Although I agree you can't really blame the Shampoo thing on him. He was 
just trying to save his fiancee.


Kit Westneat: A man, a spork, a mission (Someone better than you!)

PS. LEGAL NOTICE: Anyone who sends me unsolicited/commercial e-mail
will be charged a $500 fee. Consider this your ONLY official
notification. Failure to abide by this will result in legal action.

"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. 
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment. 
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500,
whichever is greater, for each violation." 

Have a Nice Day!