defines "compassion" as "a sympathetic consciousness of the distress of others, together with a desire to alleviate it."

That intended meaning has 2 parts: an involved feeling toward another's distress, and a wanting to allay the anguish or misery or whatever it is.

I doubt that there is much disagreement on the first part of that definition, the sympathetic consciousness part. It's the second part that seems to bring people to a parting of the ways — can you really alleviate the distress of another?

Well, I recently ran across a little story that gave me food for thought in that area. Perhaps it will do the same for you. Here it is.

"It was time for our county's annual basketball tournament!

"It had been raining for weeks. And because ours is a rural area, we had to drive over muddy roads to get to the gym where the competition was to be held.

"We drew a bye for the first round.

Then the team against whom we were paired for the second round went home for supper and got stuck in the mud. So we won by forfeiture when they failed to appear on the floor.

We were now in the 3rd round, the semi-finals, without having had to play a single game.

"For that game our opponents ran six men onto the floor, which is a violation of the rules, and we won again by forfeiture, this time because of the other team's carelessness.

"We were in the finals, now, still without having had to play a single game. The gym was packed. It was a tough match. The final score was 83 to nothing. We had the nothing."

End of story.

Do you know what that anecdote says to me? It says that you can't alleviate the distress of another by sheltering him or her from the challenges of life, any more than you can temper steel without beating on it.

Think about it.