('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
> "Lee Corbin" <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> RE: The Email Bombing IncidentDate: Tue, 7 Aug 2001 22:14:22 -0700
>Joe Dees has kindly responded to my inquiring about the so-called
>email bombing incident (I called it that). I had asked that the
>language be free of political partisanship, and there was really
>only one *flagrant* violation, to wit, "to the right of the NRA".
>I hope that any replies omit further political polarization.
>Sadly, instead of just the facts, for which I asked, there were
>a few totally unnecessary insults delivered, e.g., "two-bit satraps".
>Now I think that I'm getting the picture, thanks. I'm not making any
>judgments, and I believe that you were probably far from guiltless
>yourself. Please, let's not get into virulent or extended discussions
>of this, if we can avoid it.
If you want a bucketful of unnecessary insults, check the emails in the list archives (in the period in question) addressed to me, or just look at Mikey's current ham-fingered attempts at insinuendoes.
My language reflects the bitterness and resentment that remains with me as a result of how I was treated; it is not an academic matter when a group of ghoulish thugs attempt to mass crucify you, but an intensely personal one. If I am to admit to any guilt, it would only be the guilt of responding to insults in kind, in self-defence, as I did to Mikey's latest 'socialist fellow-traveler' slander. I refuse to call him a fascist in response; self-respecting fascists would have nothing to do with the likes of him and those of his ilk, considering them to be crass hooligans only worthy of being used on crystalnights, and to be discarded as riff-raff thereafter.
>> >I am very curious about an historical event in which Joe Dees
>> >was the alleged victim of an email campaign. It has become
>> >unclear whether there was a "campaign" at all, or whether it
>> >was directed at his own personal email address (or a list to
>> >which he merely was subscribed), or to what degree people went
>> >in order to suppress dissenting views.
>> >(I myself would prefer that Mr. Joe Dees tell his story first,
>> >if he is so inclined, in non-partisan objective language.)
>> >And, if I'm not being insulting towards anyone with these
>> >requests (for which I do apologize), I would be very happy
>> >if all accounts were free of political partisan content,
>> >i.e., that no observer would be capable of determining
>> >who was liberal or who was conservative, or whatever.
>> >Needless to say, insulting terms like "droogies" or whatever,
>> >should be omitted when it's just the facts that should be
>> >foremost first.
>> I received the emails because I was on the list; they were posted to the list,
>> but directed to me. This travesty was meant to enforce a progun hegemony
>> somewhere to the right of the NRA on this list, by means of attack, insult,
>> intimidation, mischaracterization and outright lying. They accused me of
>> wanting to ban all guns for anyone, even though that was never my position,and
>> I own five of them myself, questioned my patriotism (I'm a military vet), as if
>> not sharing their views was an act of treason that should be punishable by
>> death, accused me of being a stalking horse for various gun-control groups even
>> though I have never been a member of one or knowingly corresponded with anyone
>> who was (not that there's anything wrong with that), and branded me the worst
>> thing they could dream up, a left-liberal socialist collectivist commie pinko
>> (not all in one email, but those terms were used). In fact, I'm a fiscal
>> conservative and social liberal. The people who were engaged i!
>> n !
>> this attempt to silence/suppress me by means of a combination of
>> cyberbrowbeating and sheer volume, included, mainly, James Rogers, Lee Daniel
>> Crocker and Brian Williams (although there were others), but was spearheaded by
>> Michael Lorrey. All people have to do is look in the archives for email from
>> these individuals and replies posted by me to them to substantiate that such a
>> sustained blitzkrieg occurred. The funny thing about the whole debacle (funny
>> as in self-contradictory) was witnessing self-labeled libertarians, who
>> ostensibly despise dictatorial, totalitarian, single-view, party-line,
>> enforced-uniformity, no-tolerance-for-dissent/differing-views regimes, behaving
>> like two-bit satraps by attempting to engage in the cyberequivalent of a pogram
>> of memetic cleansing (Can anyone say 'true colors"? I know you can). In my
>> opinion, Sean Kenney's characterization was mild and over-kind. And in A
>> CLOCKWORK ORANGE, the term 'droogies' meant friends who got together to perpe!
>> ate violence; therefore I do not consider it an unfair characterization. I,
>> however, refused to back down, roll over and be a willing victim - I'm just not
>> built that way. When a moratorium was declard on the topic, the major
>> perpetrators formed their own list, exi-freedom (free from dissenting views,
>> I'll wager). Of course, far be it for these individuals to actually own up to
>> their own past actions, even though there were many list witnesses to this
>> cyber-pile-on, and this message will most probably provoke them to, oblivious
>> to the blatant irony, deny them, even with archive evidence and as they attempt
>> to repeat them.
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 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:04 MDT