This weekend, there was an outrage on Twitter concerning a columnist named Amy Dickerson. She writes an advice column for the Chicago Tribune which is syndicated across the country. In one of her columns, she responded to a question from a young woman at a college who, based on her story, was obviously raped. She goes through the whole scenario, saying she knew better but she'd been drinking at a frat party, kept telling the guy she didn't want to have sex, then it happened anyway and was only stopped midway into things by the person whose room it was coming in, getting mad, and throwing them out. At the end of her letter she asks Amy if she was a victim.

Amy's response was truthful in its way. It also came across wrong to many people, and thus the firestorm. Obviously the person was a victim, and obviously the person needed advice. But Amy said some things that many people felt were either inappropriate or untimely. Though there was way more good she said, all it takes are a couple of lines at the wrong time, in the wrong voice, to condemn the entire message.

I thought about it for awhile, and I talked to my wife about it. I also spent a good amount of time talking to one of my friends on Twitter about it. I could see where Amy was going with her counsel and felt that maybe it could have been said differently, but the overall message seemed correct. My wife agreed with me. My friend felt that no matter what, there never should have been any blame assigned to the victim at all, even if there was a message to be conveyed there, because history has shown us the negative tactics defense lawyers will use against women who say they've been raped in court.

It made me wonder further whether it's ever a good time to try to teach someone a lesson when they're down, or in pain of some kind. It's a strange conundrum when you think about it. Many parents will rescue their child from something that might cause them great danger, and their first reaction is to hit the child before hugging the child. If the child was hurt parents won't hit them, but they will later tell the child that they need to be more careful, watch out for themselves, and tell them what they did wrong.

The same kind of thing happens in the workplace. Someone knows they did something wrong, and when the manager confronts them on it they're already feeling bad, so is it good practice to tell that person at that time what they did wrong, emphasizing the issue?

Or are these such different issues, all of them, that one can't think of them as a one way fits all type of thing?

I really don't know. I can honestly say this, however. Had I been in Amy's shoes and received that letter, I never would have chosen it to give an answer to, especially in public. In my mind, it's a set up letter, whether intentional or not. Kind of like when I first knew my wife, I told her to never ask me a question where there was only one safe answer to, such as "do I look heavy in these pants", or anything of the kind. In instances like that, not only does my opinion not matter, but I don't even want to open it up for debate.

In this situation with Amy, you had to figure she was getting the letter at least a couple of weeks after the event, this person had to have talked to many other people about it already, and there really was no way to answer it without stirring people up one way or another. If she had answered it the way most people wish she had, they'd have still gotten mad and angry, only not as her. It's the type of no-win scenario James T. Kirk from Star Trek said he didn't believe in; sometimes, something just isn't meant to be won.

This one was a tough scenario. How would you have addressed it, if you would have?