('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 14:12:57 -0500
>From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: Re: Semper Vigilans - Re: Extremism
>Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>Joe Dees wrote:
>>
>> >Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 17:42:50 -0500
>> >From: "Michael S. Lorrey" <mlorrey@datamann.com>
>> >To: extropians@extropy.org
>> >Subject: Re: Semper Vigilans - Re: Extremism
>> >Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>> >
>> >Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In a message dated 1/9/01 1:01:02 PM Pacific Standard Time,
>> >> russell_whitaker@hotmail.com writes:<< Oh, and after that: "eternal
>> >> vigilance"... which takes on enhanced meaning when you're an immortalist.
>> >> Russell >>
>> >>
>> >> Russell,
>> >> That was very good. That also takes on another meaning when one is
>> >> letting a anti-gun extremist know that incrementalism ain't going to work.
>> >
>> I am not an anti-gun extremist, but an articulate moderate, but as I wrote in my phenomenology of extremism, an extremist must label everyone who does not agree with them on every particular as either a clueless dupe or a malevolent and duplicitous shill. I guess this extremist has opted for #2.
>
>Well, I must say you certainly have a broad vocabulary, but that doesn't
>make you articulate.
>
>> >
>> Yeah, as Harlan Ellison observed: "Guns don't kill people; people kill people - mainly, with guns." One used to have to be strong, fast, devious or smart to kill. Now any weak, slow, tactless dummy can do it - to anyone else, deserving or not, in defence or attack - to one's fact, or in the back. And some folks are much more likely to - kids, violent criminals, and the clinically insane - the irresponsivility triad - which is why they should be excliuded from 2nd amendment protection - for the protection of the rest of us.
>
>And, of course, you'd much prefer a corrupt Attorney General like Janet
>Reno to decide just who those prohibited people are, wouldn't you?
>
Actually, Janet Reno's cardinal sin as far as conservatives go was her independence from political pressure - precisely her INcorruptibility is what bothered them. Don't forget, she appointed more special prosecutors to investigate members of her own administration than any other attorney general in history. The fact that she would not indulge EVERY whim of the conservative bent for the politics of personal destruction, however, has led them to impotently attempt to level such a weapon at her.
And of course, you LUV John Ashcroft, who comes complete with the Jerry Falwell, NRA and antiabortion seal of approval.
>> >
>> PS: do you know what the real irony is? I was just conducting a running phenomenology of extremism, and what happens? The extremists feel maligned and felt the need to conduct a pack attack, just as I have experienced here before, and just as I characterized in my analysis. Thanks for revealing yourselves for what you truly are AND making me a prophet AGAIN. Do you really think you will deter me from ceaslessly insisting that your rabid pack crawl back into your wet dark exi-freedom hole under your flat luddite retro rock and leave the thoughtful people here to discuss the future?
>> I've had a large circle of fundamentalist christians, led by evangelist Larry Lea, loudly and passionately pray to my face for Sweet Jesus to take me, by name, then and there, because I shielded women from their picket poster attacks as they arrived to enter the clinic. Do you really think a pack of insecure progun extremist pencil-necked geeks can intimidate me online? Think back to your experience, if you can, and I'm sure you will realize better. I have posted 1200 emails here before; I will do it again, under 1200 different addies, if necessary. It is YOU who are breaking the rules here, and I will remind you of that forEVER. How's THAT for an immortalist stance?
>
>Once again, you prove yourself a heinous liar. As even Greg Burch will
>tell you, there is NO rule against such topics here. I and others have,
>in our non-extremist willingness to accomodate others on the list,
>chosen to take this discussion to the exi-freedom list that I created.
>It is YOU who continue to rant and rave your extremist, intolerant
>rhetoric here demonizing others, while refusing to join the exi-freedom
>list where your rants, according to your own arguments, belong. So you
>are not only a liar, but a hypocrite.
>
Actually, people were asked to privately mail as to whether such discussions should be continued here, and the overwhelming consensus is that they should not. Exi-freedom is supposed to do one thing for the Extropy list - bestow upon it freedom FROM all the rampant propagandistic proselytization to which people of your ilk had previously subjedted it. But obviously you find your own need to do such things here beyond your control, so you continue to indulge the meme to which you are in zombic thrall, and continue to project your own hypocritical and prevaricative tendencies upon others as well.
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:18 MDT