From: Samantha Atkins (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Jan 04 2002 - 01:58:13 MST
Apparently you have nothing better to do, Mr Clark, than roast
me because I think it is bullshit to claim that WTC, horrific as
it was, was part of a worldwide plot to turn the US into a
Muslim theocracy. I think it is bullshit and very dangerous as
I have tried to point out many times to escalate an already
tense situation with such memes. I epxlained why I think so but
you can't be bothered with that. You only want some grounds to
go on the attack and belittle apparently. Well, I refuse to
John Clark wrote:
> Samantha Atkins <email@example.com> Wrote:
> >I called no one names you will note.
> It would have been better if you had. The entire point of the list rules is to
> outlaw appeals to emotion rather than reason, at least that should be the
> point. Mr. Williams made a statement, you said you knew his motivation for
> making the statement but you don't say how you figured out such a thing.
I did not say any such thing really. I said that this meme is
spread by those who want to escalate WTC to mean even more
horrific things that it does when seen as a despicable and
dangerous level of terrorism and vulnerability to terrorism. As
this is in fact what this idea does for those who take it
seriously as has been seen on this very list I was not engaging
in any guesswork at all about Brian's motivations. My statement
was not about his motivations. I am sorry if you misread it to
> When you get around to the content of his post all you say is it's "bullshit",
> you don't say why and I can find nothing incorrect in it.
Actually I said quite a bit about why I thought this idea was
dangerous in this post and have said quite a bit in other posts
along the same lines. I don't think there is any need to dredge
it all up again.
> If on the other hand you had called Mr. Williams a name at least rightly or
> wrongly there would have been a Implicit reason for your judgement, namely
> the thing that he wrote.
I called an idea a bullshit idea. So what? I believe it is
one. I especially react that way when it is presented as if it
is a fact when it is not.
> >But that was not what 9/11 was about and the thousands killed are
> >irrelevant to whether that was what it was about.
> What on Earth does that mean? Please explain what "that" and "it"
> refer to.
I am saying that determining the value of the idea that I find
"bullshit", e.g. that 9/11 is about turning the US into a Muslim
theocracy, is separate from and not clarified by bringing up
that thousands were killed. That point, while certainly true
and horrific, has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity
of the idea I objected to.
> >Tossing them in bullies the question
> The question my dear Ms. Atkins is how to prevent more thousands of
> "irrelevant" Americans from being murdered by fanatical barbarians who
> want to change the world by force and move it in a direction that is not
> very Extropian.
I did not call any Americans "irrelevant" and you darn well know
it. I do not believe that you will prevent terrorism by
claiming 9/11 is part of a plot to make us a theocratic state or
is primarily a result of such a plot. I believe that escalates
the entire problem disasterously as I said in the initial posts
you are apparently too busy attacking to have digested fully.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:32 MST