"there are few men or women willing to risk a noose for profit alone." Yes, if they felt they had nothing to loose. That they could create a better situation for themselves and their families. Yes, also to the concept when it meant that they had everything to loose eventually. Money and both monetary survival of and for one's family is everything and worth the risk...very often when one risks something, there is a hope for an eventual gain of something; more than they would loose. Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained in the big skeem of things. And isn't $$$$ what makes and keeps the individual's world moving? A noose for any reason, the stakes have to be large and taking action sometimes makes everything worthwhile (this is risk-taking) to create something better or a different situation than one already is experiencing and is supposed to totally accept for him/herself and their family....Rhonda Houston -----Original Message----- From: Trueman Farris [mailto:jfarris@execpc.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 6:57 PM To: AMERICAN-REVOLUTION-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [A-REV] A question I really don't want to get into this pointless argument, but do you really believe that John Hancock was primarily motivated by a desire for profit, as this insinuates? Do you really believe that the "Indians" tossed the tea overboard only because of a desire for profit for smugglers? To argue so seems to fall into--nay, exceed-- the mistakes of those who argue the other side. My experience is that there are few men or women willing to risk a noose for profit alone. . ==== AMERICAN-REVOLUTION Mailing List ==== ============================== To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237