The Fatal 50,000 is about a man named Russ who stole 50,000 and then needed another 50,000, but the man he stole it from refused to give it to him, so Russ supposedly killed himself. (At the end of the story, Russ shows up alive and actually hadn't killed himself, but that's neither here nor there.) But everyone in the story acted as though the man who refused to hand over the 50,000 was a selfish, stingy creep and that it was HIS fault that Russ wanted to kill himself. Somehow I don't agree with this line of thinking. The man (Russ) STOLE the money from the company. One can feel sorry for him perhaps, but that doesn't mean that the other man should have handed him another 50,000, nor does that give Russ (the thief) any right to expect or demand any more money. Why was the company man's wife mad at him for not giving Russ the money? Why SHOULD he give Russ the money?!?!? Russ should give back the money HE stole, not the other way around. The writers wanted to give some sort of message about putting a price on life and how no amount of money is worth someone's life, etc. But what about personal responsibility? Russ STOLE the money and then he needed another 50,000 in addition to what he already STOLE from the company. Then he asked the company man to give him 50,000 and the company man refused, so Russ goes off in despair and the company man's wife comforts him (and falls in love with him). Then she's mad at her husband and blames her husband for Russ' alleged suicide, accusing him of virtually killing Russ because he didn't give him 50,000. Well, sorry, but this is just totally unreasonable. Russ got himself into this jam in the first place. It's not the company man's fault that Russ can't deal with the consequences of his own actions. Why should he have to PAY for what Russ did and then be made to feel like a guilty, selfish creep for not giving Russ yet another 50,000? His wife was totally nuts to be mad at him and he should be mad at her for siding with Russ instead of realizing that it was HIS money and Russ STOLE the first 50,000 in the first place. Why should she want her husband to pay Russ yet another 50,000? Why SHOULD he trust that Russ will pay it back. Russ didn't prove he was reliable before, after all, so for crying out loud, it's not fair at all. I don't blame him for being cranky about the situation. Wouldn't you be mad if someone stole a huge amount of money from you, asked for an additional same amount of money and then your spouse is mad at you for not giving the additional money to the thief? The whole story really offends my sense of ethics, lol. Who wrote it anyway? Anyway, end of rant. I just had to get my two cents in. (smile)