> The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. Although this is a whole other discussion, t

> The "experiment" was to see if a system based purely on goodwill, like take-a-penny, leave-a-penny, can survive. Although this is a whole other discussion, the experiment had a few more implications than that, and Odio pointed them out. >I'm baffled by your surprise at the reaction. Are you likewise surprised by the fact that people don't like the guy who comes up to the bowl labeled "Free Candy" and takes all of the candy, leaving none for anyone else? "But I'm just demonstrating that any system based on goodwill is open to abuse!" Well, yeah. We know. People hate that. I should say I'm more surprised at the magnitude and nature of the outrage. There's lots of thoughtful commentary, but at the same time, I've read lots of blind hatred towards Sam. The community around Jonathan's Card appear to be outraged and are touting their moral superiority over Odio. He may have been a dick, but to me, it appears like so many were acting as if Jonathan's Card was their only act of goodwill - and many were acting like this was going to benefit those in need (debatable). Sam said it was about 'yuppies buying other yuppies coffee.' He was pointing out an issue that other people who were taking advantage of the cards were not doing. Unfortunately he chose to game the system. The Jonathan's Card experiment is not over, and what people do next is the critical result of the experiment.