Re: Extremism

From: Joe Dees (
Date: Tue Jan 09 2001 - 14:30:47 MST

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:30:22 -0500
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <>
>Subject: Re: Extremism
>Joe Dees wrote:
>> >Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 15:09:59 -0800
>> >To:
>> >From: James Rogers <>
>> >At 01:46 PM 1/8/01 -0800, Joe Dees wrote:
>> >
>> >[...much foaming at the mouth elided...]
>> >
>> >>Yes, you have principles, but they are EXTREME ones, as are those of James
>> >>Rogers and Brian Williams, your progun extremist droogies.
>> >Hey, *I'm* not the one who has to wipe spittle off my monitor from rabid
>> >venting. You are a tool of your emotional imbalance.
>> >
>> You have accused me of being both an ignorant and clueless dupe and a malevolent and duplicitous shill, even though those two categories are mutually exclusive - just like extremists do to any who do not agree with them in every particular. You have been sneering, snide, smug, supercilious, contemptuous, dismissive, and generally self-righteous and absolutistically and unreflectively self-certain towards both me and my positions - just like extremists would be. You and the droogies that I named engaged in a pack assault upon me when I had the temerity and gall to challenge your totalitarian thought-hegemony enforcement on this list - just like a herd of extremist sheeple would - resulting in the list consensus decision that you create another list within which to proselytize and propagandize each other, and mutually sing to the approving choir. The shoe fits, and whether or not you have the prerequisite honesty and integrity to admit it to yourself or others, you!
> h!
>ave been styling it, until the exi-freedom banishment, for some time now.
>You seem to have this constitutional incapacity to tell the truth, Joe,
>a classic sign of an extremist, since it was I who created the
>exi-freedom list at egroups on my own initiative and offered it to the
>extropians list as an alternative forum so as to not incite the frothful
>and fevered allergic reaction of extremist freedomphobes such as
>yourself, your statement here, as I have told you on the several
>occasions you have stated it here, is an out and out lie. Another
>classic sign of an extremist is when someone goes into spastic rants,
>mischaracterizing their opponents positions, and demanding they be
>removed (by exile or firing squad does not seem to matter much to them).
>I and others have stated on many occasions our agreement with policies
>of keeping guns out of the hands of individuals who have been proven
>incapable of respecting their fellow humans, we do however have
>legitimate concerns about how such policies are implemented by
>governments due to the cases of abuse and malfeasance which have occured
>in the past, so your statements that we want to give everybody guns, is
>again an out and out lie and you know it is.
>I hope at least you seek help with your pathological lying.
Overtly, you assert these things, yes; but when it comes down to federally standardizing state laws to get rid of the inconsistencies that furl interstate bleck markets, when it comes down to mandating checks of prospective purchasers for all sales to prevent crazies and violent ex-cons from getting them, when it comes down to placing a reasonable monthly cap on individual firearms purchases to deter illicit dealing in firearms, you and your droogies dig in your heels and shout bloody murder. It's like saying, "Yeah, sure we're in favor of it (wink, wink, nudge, nudge), but DON'T YOU DARE try to pass or patch any laws that'll get us there! Yasee, we want them done, but don't trust the guv-mint to do them! (Well, who DO you trust to do them?) NO ONE!" This is known in even polite circles as rank hypocrisy (as well as duplicitous pathology).

Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL! compares book price at 41 online stores.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:17 MDT