OK to fund 'Dung on AIDS Quilt' 'art' too?
demograt.whiner
if someone tossed elephant dung on the so-called AIDS quilt?...
On a photo of MLK?...
On a star of David?...
<think about that>
Having undoubtedly answered those questions to yourself, now consider:
How would those be any different whatsoever, than the NYC "art"?
(the point here, *not* intended to advocate any of the examples above!)
Would the left still be demanding such "art" receive taxpayer support?
Or would they be too busy screaming about "hate crimes", "racism",
"anti-semitism", "homophobia"...?
Of course leftwingers would not be supporting it. They would be FURIOUS!
They would be marching in front of network reporters (who would
of course be hanging on their every word) DEMANDING charges be brought
for "hate" and screaming about "intolerance".
It is obvious liberals are selectively blind to hate,
when that hate is practiced by another leftwinger.
In every other case, leftwingers would go absolutely ballistic...
There's no question about it.
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Scott D. Erb
>Wonder if all the same leftwingers would be defending as "art"
>if someone tossed elephant dung on the so-called AIDS quilt?...
>
>On a photo of MLK?...
>
>On a star of David?...
You miss the point completely.
It isn't about politics, its about art. It obviously isn't about being
politically correct, because this art is not politically correct. And the art
isn't being subsidized, rather the museum is showing art that has already been
a hit, and already paid for by someone else.
This art is powerful and, yes, getting people upset. Things that are
politically incorrect often upset people. Too bad.
It is effective. Indeed, the debates and anger around it is simply
performance art that magnifies the power of the exhibit. Supporters of the
exhibit must be very pleased -- and I'm sure they thank you for playing your
role as well!
ciao, scott
rose...@idt.net
>Wonder if all the same leftwingers would be defending as "art"
>if someone tossed elephant dung on the so-called AIDS quilt?...
Sticks and stones.................
Bubbah Gump
wrote:
>Wonder if all the same leftwingers would be defending as "art"
>if someone tossed elephant dung on the so-called AIDS quilt?...
>
>On a photo of MLK?...
It would depend on context and intent of the artist.
>On a star of David?...
It would depend on context and intent of the artist.
><think about that>
>
>Having undoubtedly answered those questions to yourself, now consider:
>How would those be any different whatsoever, than the NYC "art"?
It would depend on context and intent of the artist.
>Would the left still be demanding such "art" receive taxpayer support?
Theywould probably defend public funding.. The liberal/left does not
react the same way as the conservative/right do when it comes to
offensive art.
>Or would they be too busy screaming about "hate crimes", "racism",
>"anti-semitism", "homophobia"...?
Probably not.
>Of course leftwingers would not be supporting it. They would be FURIOUS!
It would depend on context and intent of the artist.
>They would be marching in front of network reporters (who would
>of course be hanging on their every word) DEMANDING charges be brought
>for "hate" and screaming about "intolerance".
As I said, the Left does not act like the right in such matters.
If anything the Left encourages the more subversive and offensive art.
>It is obvious liberals are selectively blind to hate,
>when that hate is practiced by another leftwinger.
>
>In every other case, leftwingers would go absolutely ballistic...
No they wouldn't.
>There's no question about it.
Not in your mind, evidently. You must be a right-winged conservative,.
Kurt Nicklas
>>if someone tossed elephant dung on the so-called AIDS quilt?...
>>
>>On a photo of MLK?...
>>
>
>
>It isn't about politics, its about art. It obviously isn't about being
>politically correct, because this art is not politically correct. And the art
>isn't being subsidized, rather the museum is showing art that has already been
>a hit, and already paid for by someone else.
Of course it's about politics. That's why it's being discussed in these groups.
>
>This art is powerful and, yes, getting people upset. Things that are
>politically incorrect often upset people. Too bad.
So do burning crosses, burning flags and swastikas scrawled on synogogues.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Scott D. Erb
knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>>This art is powerful and, yes, getting people upset. Things that are
>>politically incorrect often upset people. Too bad.
>
>So do burning crosses, burning flags and swastikas scrawled on synogogues.
Those could all be part of an art exhibit as well, though if you scrawl
something on someone else's property that could be vandalism and thus a crime.
From what I hear, the exhibit in New York is very well done, powerful art. I
think ultimately the Mayor is going to look petty and bad for his actions,
which is ironic since I think he's only doing this to try to win conservative
support for his Senate run.
ciao, scott
Kurt Nicklas
>
>In article <7t7kc3$m95$3...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
>knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>>>This art is powerful and, yes, getting people upset. Things that are
>>>politically incorrect often upset people. Too bad.
>>
>>So do burning crosses, burning flags and swastikas scrawled on synogogues.
>
>Those could all be part of an art exhibit as well, though if you scrawl
>something on someone else's property that could be vandalism and thus a crime.
As you know very well, the objections to the 3 acts above do not concern vandalism.
They concern political correctness, bigotry and offending sensibilities. Not long
ago a U.S. museum featured an exhibit including a portrait of a prominent Black mayor
wearing ladies lingeree. Not long after opening a group of Black activists physically
removed the portrait. There was no outcry of 'censorship'.
>From what I hear, the exhibit in New York is very well done, powerful art.
The exhibit includes a decomposing animal's head being eaten by real flies,
a shark in a tank of formaldehyde and a picture of the Virgin Mary with
elephant dung and pornographic images all over it. This may be your idea
of 'well done, powerful art', Scott, but it isn't mine.
But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Krow
vandalism, Knickers. The same thing a group of kids from Buffalo were
charged with when they painted upside down crosses on a Catholic Church. If
you throw shit on your own painting...you may be accused of bad taste...but
that isn't a crime. BTW...this debate isn't about using public money for
the arts....it's about Generalissmo Guiliani's attempts to use the
government system in place as a club for censorship.
--
Krow
A Flying Weasel
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/5969/
=======================================================
" Yes!!!!!!!!! You the man Phillips. Negros are the white man's burden.
They have such lack of class and they belame it on us."
--Usenet Goosestepper
Adam "I'm not a bigot" Conley
=======================================================
"I haven't spoken to my wife for 18 months. I don't like to interrupt her."
--Henny Youngman
Kurt Nicklas <knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:7t7ppk$erl$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
Scott D. Erb
knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>As you know very well, the objections to the 3 acts above do not concern
>vandalism. They concern political correctness, bigotry and offending
>sensibilities. Not long ago a U.S. museum featured an exhibit including a
>portrait of a prominent Black mayor wearing ladies lingeree. Not long after
>opening a group of Black activists physically removed the portrait. There was
>no outcry of 'censorship'.
I would oppose that kind of attempt to stifle free expression, though I think
there is a difference between activists acting, perhaps illegally, and
government using its power to try to pick and choose which art is "good." I
do think museums are choosey, and if it wasn't for the reputation of this
exhibit in the art community, and its success in other places where it has
gone to display, it would not be chosen solely for its subject matter.
From all I hear, its really good art -- and I suspect those who see it and
work to understand it will come up with the same opinion.
>The exhibit includes a decomposing animal's head being eaten by real flies,
>a shark in a tank of formaldehyde and a picture of the Virgin Mary with
>elephant dung and pornographic images all over it. This may be your idea
>of 'well done, powerful art', Scott, but it isn't mine.
Hey, art has included really colorful unrealistic drawings of starry nights, a
campbell's soup can...when I saw a pop art exhibit in Koeln back in 1992 it
had a lot of stuff that few people would consider art, but yet it was done as
art and effectively.
But its OK to disagree on what good art is or not. I don't like rap music,
but I love the group Styx (which some people say is commercial pop and not
art)...
From what I hear, this IS my idea -- and the idea of many other people -- of
what good art can be, and its having precisely the kind of impact I think it
should -- causing debate, controversy...and yet people who see it are impacted
by it, one person on CNN said it was really a beautiful exhibit. Perhaps you
shouldn't just condemn based on a description of some basics -- thats pretty
misleading when dealing with art.
>But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
I feel the same way about the war against Yugoslavia, the war against Iraq,
and the drug laws...
But I guess those are political issues where none of us will get our way all
the time.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
says...
>>But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
>
>payers, Kurtie.
>
>Thanks for seeing to it that many more people want to go check out
>these works of art.
Also, Kurt needs to be reminded that what he really objects to is not this art
exhibit, but the fact that New York City gives funding to the Brooklyn Museum
of Art. This particular exhibit was not funded by our tax money. Rather, the
Brooklyn Museum wanted to show it, and contracted to have it come.
Thus the nature of this exhibit is irrelevant to Kurt's argument, he needs to
say that we should just close down all public museums, as that's where his
argument leads.
The argument against Guiliani is that once the government does choose to fund
museums, whether thats a good choice or a bad, its a dangerous policy to then
pull funding whenever the government doesn't like the art being shown.
ciao, scott
Billy Beck
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>Let's see some details, Kurtie.
From: wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
Newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: FORTH WORTH SHOOTINGS - A CALL TO DISARM VIOLENT
NUTCASES!
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:58:11 GMT
Message-ID: <37e99082...@news.mindspring.com>
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net (Bill Kasper) wrote:
>> They were hetrosexual fundementalist Christian kids, Krossdress.
>> The mortal enemy of you and Your President.
>
>They were killed by a right wing white supremacist Christian...
Cite, please.
"Right wing", "white supremacist", "Christian".
That shouldn't be difficult to substantiate, but I think you just
made it up.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
hamilton
(Scott D. Erb) wrote:
nicely put.
demograt.whiner
Fact is the museum's lease specifically requires the NYC mayor
(Guiliani, in case you missed that) to approve or disapprove
any closure of the museum to free admission in order to charge
for any exhibit.
The lease also stipulates that if the museum does so without
approval from the NYC mayor (Guilianai, if you recall) that the
museum lease is as a result null and void - and there goes
one third of the museum's funding, which is paid by taxpayers.
The museum indeed is closed to free admission. The museum indeed
is charging admission to the exhibit. And the NYC mayor
(which is, in case you forgot) Guiliani, has indeed not approved
the closing - as is clearly required in the lease.
In other words, the museum is up a creek. As it should be.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with "censorship",
the "first amendment" or any of the other red herrings the loopy
leftwing dung-flinging and whining set are trying to pretend.
It's literally about tax money being wasted to subsidise ... CRAP.
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
hamilton
<nos...@nospam.non> wrote:
Nonsense -- if he were really concerned about offensive art, he would
have no trouble 'approving' the closure of the exhibit to children.
This is a 'know nothing' political appeal designed to rile up the yahoos.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> X-No-Archive: Yes
Scott D. Erb
>
>Fact is the museum's lease specifically requires
Oh, come on, you know that's not why the Mayor is doing this.
Anyway, but the time this goes through the court system the exhibition will be
done, and all sides will forget about it and things will get back to normal.
Its all just a show. Performance art.
Krow
here.
--
Krow
A Flying Weasel
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/5969/
=======================================================
" Yes!!!!!!!!! You the man Phillips. Negros are the white man's burden.
They have such lack of class and they belame it on us."
--Usenet Goosestepper
Adam "I'm not a bigot" Conley
=======================================================
"I haven't spoken to my wife for 18 months. I don't like to interrupt her."
--Henny Youngman
hamilton <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message
news:hamilton-031...@host-209-214-115-95.bna.bellsouth.net...
Michael Zarlenga
: Apparently, it worked to...judging the responses from the loons to it around
: here
Was it worth the $7 million the City can now withhold for violating the
terms of the lease? Was it worth the risk of being kicked off city prop-
erty for violating the terms of the lease?
When the smoke clears, the Museum will be the loser and the Mayor will
be the hero. After all, the truth is he was only doing his job, as re-
quired by the terms of the lease. And, as polls have shown, by a 2 to
1 margin, people think taxpayer funds should NOT be used for this kind
of "art."
Has anyone else noticed that Ms. Clinton has been relatively SILENT on
this? Ask yourselves why. It's because even she knows that backing the
museum and the use of public funds for this would be a losing situation.
There are plenty of things to attack Giuliani for; this is not one of
them. I wonder if maybe he didn't do this simply to spoon-fee a red
herring to the press and his enemies there.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Kurt Nicklas
>
>In article <380483e2...@news.mindspring.com>, Volt...@geocities.com
>says...
>>>But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
>>
>>All those folks who are flocking to the Brooklyn Museum are tax
>>payers, Kurtie.
>>
>>Thanks for seeing to it that many more people want to go check out
>>these works of art.
>
>Also, Kurt needs to be reminded that what he really objects to is not this art
>exhibit, but the fact that New York City gives funding to the Brooklyn Museum
>of Art. This particular exhibit was not funded by our tax money. Rather, the
>Brooklyn Museum wanted to show it, and contracted to have it come.
No, Scott, I object to this exhibit AND the fact that tax payer money is being used
to exhibit an obviously insensitive, objectionable exhibition.
>Thus the nature of this exhibit is irrelevant to Kurt's argument, he needs to
>say that we should just close down all public museums, as that's where his
>argument leads.
No it isn't. Sorry.
>The argument against Guiliani is that once the government does choose to fund
>museums, whether thats a good choice or a bad, its a dangerous policy to then
>pull funding whenever the government doesn't like the art being shown.
I'd say when you get a significant part of the public objecting to it that that
is an excellent reason to pull funding. A significant part of the public does not
object to Van Gogh, Mondrian or Picasso. A significant part of the public DOES
object to dung-splattered Madonnas.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Kurt Nicklas
>
>On 3 Oct 1999 14:38:44 GMT, knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com (Kurt
>Nicklas) wrote:
>
>>In article <7t7neh$oal$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu opined...
>>>
>>>In article <7t7kc3$m95$3...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>>knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>>>>>This art is powerful and, yes, getting people upset. Things that are
>>>>>politically incorrect often upset people. Too bad.
>>>>
>>>>So do burning crosses, burning flags and swastikas scrawled on synogogues.
>>>
>>>Those could all be part of an art exhibit as well, though if you scrawl
>>>something on someone else's property that could be vandalism and thus a crime.
>>
>>They concern political correctness, bigotry and offending sensibilities. Not long
>>ago a U.S. museum featured an exhibit including a portrait of a prominent Black mayor
>>wearing ladies lingeree. Not long after opening a group of Black activists physically
>>removed the portrait. There was no outcry of 'censorship'.
>
Say 'Pretty please', Voltless Jim.
>
>>>From what I hear, the exhibit in New York is very well done, powerful art.
>>
>>The exhibit includes a decomposing animal's head being eaten by real flies,
>>a shark in a tank of formaldehyde and a picture of the Virgin Mary with
>>elephant dung and pornographic images all over it. This may be your idea
>>of 'well done, powerful art', Scott, but it isn't mine.
>
>But YOU are not in charge of saying what is art now are you Kurtie?
Neither are you, thank God. But I am in charge of pointing out to you that
a significant part of the public is extremely offended by this exhibit.
But they're *Christian*, aren't they? And we *know* how much you *hate*
Christians, don't we? (See URL below)
>>But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
>
>All those folks who are flocking to the Brooklyn Museum are tax
>payers, Kurtie.
Yep. And so are the ones objecting to the exhibit, including an organization
of Orthodox Jewish rabbais.
>Thanks for seeing to it that many more people want to go check out
>these works of art.
Thanks for seeing to it that many more people want to check out my Left Wing
Hate page below. Thanks again.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Scott Erb
knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>
>No, Scott, I object to this exhibit AND the fact that tax payer money is
being used
>to exhibit an obviously insensitive, objectionable exhibition.
The I disagree strongly with you. I can respect a view that says no art
can be subsidized. That is at least principled and applied evenly.
But if you allow any art to be subsidized (in this case via funding to a
museum), then I believe it is dangerous policy to allow government to say
what should or should not be considered art.
That reeks of censorship (even if it is, as I would admit, costitutional
-- my argument would be on political and principled grounds rather than
constitutional grounds). I also do not think a majority of the public's
view matters here, though obviously a majority hasn't seen it and reacts
mostly to what appears to be misstatements about the exhibit.
In any event, the exhibition is a success, and I think in time this will
probably be something Guiliani will not be proud of in his career. He's
playing politics and leaving principle behind.
Ernest Brown
will and won't fund, just like any other art buyer.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
On Mon, 4 Oct 1999, Scott Erb wrote:
> Date: Mon, 04 Oct 99 08:46:52 EST
> From: Scott Erb <scot...@maine.edu>
> Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
> alt.society.liberalism
> Subject: Re: OK to fund 'Dung on AIDS Quilt' 'art' too?
Kurt Nicklas
>
>In article <7t9rbr$eqs$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
>knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>>
>>No, Scott, I object to this exhibit AND the fact that tax payer money is
>being used
>>to exhibit an obviously insensitive, objectionable exhibition.
>
>The I disagree strongly with you. I can respect a view that says no art
>can be subsidized. That is at least principled and applied evenly.
>
>But if you allow any art to be subsidized (in this case via funding to a
>museum), then I believe it is dangerous policy to allow government to say
>what should or should not be considered art.
But it discriminates all the time as to what to support and what not to support.
Do you think every applicant for arts grant is given money? Do you think
every artist is has his work picked to be subsidized.
>That reeks of censorship (even if it is, as I would admit, costitutional
>-- my argument would be on political and principled grounds rather than
>constitutional grounds).
Like I said, the government makes these kinds of decisions about art all the time.
>I also do not think a majority of the public's
>view matters here, though obviously a majority hasn't seen it and reacts
>mostly to what appears to be misstatements about the exhibit.
So a majority opinion doesn't matter on what it's money is spent on?? May
I quote you on this in future? :)
>In any event, the exhibition is a success, and I think in time this will
>probably be something Guiliani will not be proud of in his career. He's
>playing politics and leaving principle behind.
No question that controversy helps any public event. I expect they'll make
lots of money. But points have been scored and those involved will remember
what happened.
The mayor is a politician. He made a decision based on politics and his job
as mayor and what a significant number of people believe. That's what he's
supposed to be doing. If that hurts him in future so be it.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Scott Erb
knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>But it discriminates all the time as to what to support and what not to
>support.
>Do you think every applicant for arts grant is given money? Do you think
>every artist is has his work picked to be subsidized.
Again, that has nothing to do with trying to stop a museum from exhibiting
art -- especially since this art was not subsidized by the US government.
The issue here is for the government to decide what is right for a museum
to show or not -- to micromanage. I agree they CAN, but I think it is a
very BAD policy option. I also think its self-defeating, I think its
backfiring in this case. If this was just a case of an artist not getting
a government grant or something, fine. But this is a museum being
punished for choosing to exhibit an world renowned art exhibition because
it ruffles a few feathers. I think that people should stand up for
freedom of expression, though certianly both sides should get involved.
Kurt Nicklas
>
>In article <7taoq8$l8u$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
>knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>
>>But it discriminates all the time as to what to support and what not to
>>support.
>>Do you think every applicant for arts grant is given money? Do you think
>>every artist is has his work picked to be subsidized.
>
>Again, that has nothing to do with trying to stop a museum from exhibiting
>art -- especially since this art was not subsidized by the US government.
Of course it does and I believe already addressed that in part of my previous
messages that you've deleted. You rather like to do that sort of thing,
don't you?
>The issue here is for the government to decide what is right for a museum
>to show or not -- to micromanage. I agree they CAN, but I think it is a
>very BAD policy option.
They can and do. It's done all the time by the art establishment deciding
what's 'art' and what isn't. And government funds flow from those decisions.
>I also think its self-defeating, I think its
>backfiring in this case. If this was just a case of an artist not getting
>a government grant or something, fine. But this is a museum being
>punished for choosing to exhibit an world renowned art exhibition because
>it ruffles a few feathers.
You'd like to minimize the effect of this wouldn't you? In fact isn't not
ruffling feathers. It's offending people. It's offending people who object
to having their money go to support this offensive art. They have a right
to object and do what they can to stop it.
>I think that people should stand up for
>freedom of expression, though certianly both sides should get involved.
No one is censoring the artist. No one is repressing him. No one is advocating
forcing him to stop producing what ever he wants to produce. What people are
saying is that public money should not be going to support 'art' that offends
a large group of people.
This isn't rocket science, Scott. He can do what he wants.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Scott D. Erb
knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>It's offending people. It's offending people who object
>to having their money go to support this offensive art. They have a right
>to object and do what they can to stop it.
Sure, and I have the right to do what I can to make sure they don't stop it.
That includes arguing about the danger of government influence over freedom of
expression, noting that this could be a two edged sword when big brother can
determine what art is and what art is not, and arguing that getting offended
isn't such a bad thing.
Kurt Nicklas
>
>In article <7tb3s4$8to$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>,
>knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>
>
>>It's offending people. It's offending people who object
>>to having their money go to support this offensive art. They have a right
>>to object and do what they can to stop it.
>
>
>Sure, and I have the right to do what I can to make sure they don't stop it.
Certainly.
>That includes arguing about the danger of government influence over freedom of
>expression, noting that this could be a two edged sword when big brother can
>determine what art is and what art is not,
It is a two-edged sword and THEY ALREADY ARE DETERMINING WHAT ART IS AND WHAT
ART IS NOT. I really don't know how many times I have to say that. Government
funded 'arts councils' are doing just that. If you wouldn't be so quick to delete
what I write I wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. :)
>and arguing that getting offended isn't such a bad thing.
Tell that to, among others, the jewish Anti-Defamation League and those folks protesting
the Confederate Battle Flag over the South Carolina Statehouse.
They might say otherwise.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Michael Ejercito
<nos...@nospam.non> wrote:
> Wonder if all the same leftwingers would be defending as "art"
> if someone tossed elephant dung on the so-called AIDS quilt?...
>
> On a photo of MLK?...
>
> On a star of David?...
I would defintely oppose such pictures. if the National alliance wants
to display such "art",they can fund their own museum.
Michael
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>>It's offending people. It's offending people who object
>>to having their money go to support this offensive art. They have a right
>>to object and do what they can to stop it.
>Sure, and I have the right to do what I can to make sure they don't stop it.
No doubt about *that*. After all: you're a poli-sci
professorboy.
>That includes arguing about the danger of government influence over freedom of
>expression, noting that this could be a two edged sword when big brother can
>determine what art is and what art is not...
They're doing that *now* you moron, simply with the act of
subsidizing production and exhibition.
Michael Ejercito
prking Kennemur in the ass,both men covered in dung.
Now THAT is art.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Alan Furman
"Art is shit."
- Man Ray, 1922
--
LIBERTARIAN PARTY http://www.lp.org The Partnership for a Free America
|"There's no way to rule innocent men...When there aren't enough criminals, |
| one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes |
| impossible to live without breaking laws." -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged_ |
Billy Beck
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>You don't have any proof as usual, Kurtie?
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>Let's see some details, Kurtie.
From: wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
Newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: FORTH WORTH SHOOTINGS - A CALL TO DISARM VIOLENT
NUTCASES!
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:58:11 GMT
Message-ID: <37e99082...@news.mindspring.com>
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net (Bill Kasper) wrote:
>> They were hetrosexual fundementalist Christian kids, Krossdress.
>> The mortal enemy of you and Your President.
>
>They were killed by a right wing white supremacist Christian...
Cite, please.
"Right wing", "white supremacist", "Christian".
That shouldn't be difficult to substantiate, but I think you just
made it up.
Kurt Nicklas
>
>On 4 Oct 1999 09:24:18 GMT, knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com (Kurt
>Nicklas) wrote:
>
>>In article <380483e2...@news.mindspring.com>, Volt...@geocities.com opined...
>>>
>>>On 3 Oct 1999 14:38:44 GMT, knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com (Kurt
>>>Nicklas) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <7t7neh$oal$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu opined...
>>>>>
>>>>>In article <7t7kc3$m95$3...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
>>>>>knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
>>>>>>>This art is powerful and, yes, getting people upset. Things that are
>>>>>>>politically incorrect often upset people. Too bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So do burning crosses, burning flags and swastikas scrawled on synogogues.
>>>>>
>>>>>Those could all be part of an art exhibit as well, though if you scrawl
>>>>>something on someone else's property that could be vandalism and thus a crime.
>>>>
>>>>As you know very well, the objections to the 3 acts above do not concern vandalism.
>>>>They concern political correctness, bigotry and offending sensibilities. Not long
>>>>ago a U.S. museum featured an exhibit including a portrait of a prominent Black mayor
>>>>wearing ladies lingeree. Not long after opening a group of Black activists physically
>>>>removed the portrait. There was no outcry of 'censorship'.
>>>
>>
>
>
You're not saying 'Please' loudly enough, Voltless? Are all Texans as vapid as you?
>
>>>>>From what I hear, the exhibit in New York is very well done, powerful art.
>>>>
>>>>The exhibit includes a decomposing animal's head being eaten by real flies,
>>>>a shark in a tank of formaldehyde and a picture of the Virgin Mary with
>>>>elephant dung and pornographic images all over it. This may be your idea
>>>>of 'well done, powerful art', Scott, but it isn't mine.
>>>
>>>But YOU are not in charge of saying what is art now are you Kurtie?
>>
>>Neither are you, thank God. But I am in charge of pointing out to you that
>>a significant part of the public is extremely offended by this exhibit.
>
>Is that why thousands have lined up in support of these works of art,
>Kurtie?
Is that why thousands object to government support for dung-covered Virgins as art?
>Thanks for helping make it possible.
Don't mention it. We're making our point very nicely, thank you.
>>But they're *Christian*, aren't they? And we *know* how much you *hate*
>>Christians, don't we?
>
>I don't hate Christians, Kurtie.
Of course you do. Anyone can see that from your posts. But then you like to try to
cover those up by preventing your posts from being archived, isn't it? Anyone who
cares can take a look at what you think about Christianity on my page below. By the way,
thanks for the *very weak* denial.
>But I do love hypocrites. Especially fat juicy ones like you with BBQ
>sauce.
You're a laugh, Jim Ed. You learn that in Poli. Sci school?
>>>>But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
>>>
>>>All those folks who are flocking to the Brooklyn Museum are tax
>>>payers, Kurtie.
>>
>>Yep. And so are the ones objecting to the exhibit, including an organization
>>of Orthodox Jewish rabbais.
>
>So they don't go in and life goes on.
May I quote you on that the next time you go on a rant about the Christian Coalition or
Confederate flags?
Count on it.
>That is how things work in America, Kurtie.
Ditto.
>You hypocritical assholes haven't managed to change that yet.
>
>And you won't Kurtie!
You're a million laughs, Jim Ed. Is everyone in Houston as shallow and vapid as you?
Doesn't seem possible.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Milt
wrote:
>Wonder if all the same leftwingers would be defending as "art"
>if someone tossed elephant dung on the so-called AIDS quilt?...
>
>On a photo of MLK?...
>
>On a star of David?...
>
>
><think about that>
You think about it.
All of the above examples are not my cup of tea. I would never go see
them. But then, if there was a showing of velvet Elvis painings, I
wouldn't go see that, either.
I have no desire to see the Virgin Mary covered in dung. A few of the
sculptures I saw from that exhibit were on the bizarre/odd side, as
well. But the point is, if there is art out there whihc offends my
sensibilities, I stay away. If I don't like a movie or a recording
artist, I don't buy a ticket or an album. If I'm offended by a TV
program, I change the channel. It's called freedom of choice.
>Having undoubtedly answered those questions to yourself, now consider:
>How would those be any different whatsoever, than the NYC "art"?
>
>(the point here, *not* intended to advocate any of the examples above!)
Gee, I'd never have guessed.
Funny, but I find it amazing that the same right wingers who want
absolute freedom for what they like, would decide for sokmeone else
what their tastes should be, based on their sensibilities. It's a bit
hypocritical, to say the least...
>Would the left still be demanding such "art" receive taxpayer support?
I think art is important, and I think the survival of our culture
demands that we support the arts. And if, occassionally, a couple of
pieces sneak through that are absolutely ridiculous, as a dung-covered
Mary is, then so be it. For every "Piss Christ", there are thousands
of beautiful works of art, plays and musical scores whihc are created
solely because the government supports it. If we left art to "the
market", the National Gallery would have paintings of cowboys on
velvet, and the Kennedy Center would be hosting the 105th revival of
Life With Father...
Your mischaracterization of "leftwingers" would be funny if it wasn't
so pathetic. YOU seem to be the one whining and pissing and moaning
here. I say, "live and let live"...
Milt
x-no-archive:yes
Bill Kasper
<snip>
Still waiting for your cite on this one, Jiz:
<replay>
From: wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
Newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: FORTH WORTH SHOOTINGS - A CALL TO DISARM VIOLENT
NUTCASES!
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:58:11 GMT
Message-ID: <37e99082...@news.mindspring.com>
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net (Bill Kasper) wrote:
>> They were hetrosexual fundementalist Christian kids, Krossdress.
>> The mortal enemy of you and Your President.
>
>They were killed by a right wing white supremacist Christian...
Cite, please.
"Right wing", "white supremacist", "Christian".
That shouldn't be difficult to substantiate, but I think you just
made it up.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper,VR-WC->,SIGINT
Evac Detail
The legitimate powers of government extend only to
such acts as are injurious to others." - Thomas Jefferson
Scott D. Erb
bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net says...
How amusing, but predictable.
When these guys have no rational argument, they pick some point in a post and
just press for cites.
Let them press, they only make themselves look dense.
It also shows they are frustrated as hell ;)
Billy Beck
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>I'm saying you are full of shit, Kurtie.
>
>And you aren't denying it.
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>You don't have any proof as usual, Kurtie?
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>Let's see some details, Kurtie.
From: wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
Zepp
wrote:
It seems, Bill, that your boy was a member of the Phineas Priests.
These good old boys consider themselves devout Xians, and strongly
support seperation of the races, all others being inferior.
>
>
>Billy
>
>VRWC Fronteer
>http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
**********************************************************
"Why should I entertain his intolerance?"
-- Knopp, 'explaining' why he won't
consider an explanation for
art that Knopp does not like.
**********************************************************
Not dead, in jail or a slave?
Thank a liberal!
Liberalism Resurgent, Steve's brilliant
and well-documented page, is mirrored at
the following locations:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo
http://home.att.net/~jbvm/Resurgent
http://www.wtrt.net/~blarson/institute.htm
http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo
http://resurgent.virtualave.net
Warning: Contains ideas
************************************************************
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
laug...@powerfart.com
> "Right wing", "white supremacist", "Christian".
>
> That shouldn't be difficult to substantiate, but I think you just
>made it up.
Gee.
Look at it this way.
So have you loonies in accusing Clinton for 7 years.
why the "outrage" at this late date.
Course you know it's why we laugh at your lame ass.
(well abused, lame ass, BTW)
==============================================
"DEATH THREAT BECK" BLUSTERS:
Come get some, bitch, and when you find your nerve enough to move on your stated
principles, I will personally blow your useless head off with one shot
and leave you for the ants to carry away from the curb in front of my
house.
Bill Kasper
said:
<snip>
=
=How amusing, but predictable.
=
Seen W:TROE yet?
Found that post from Kurt that "outdebated" Robertson?
...
"Warren Beatty: Genius" - Scott Erb.
You're great. Don't ever change.
--------------------------------------------------------
"This country is turning into the only place on
this planet where you can be stupid, lazy, sick and old
and not die. That's not normal." - Anon.
Bill Kasper
<snip>
=
=Their problem is that I give them more citations than they care to
=handle.
Sorry Krossdressamur, I missed that cite you provided which
backed up your assertion that Larry Ashbrook, the screamingly
anti-Christian mass-murderer, was in fact a "white supremacist right-wing
Christian".
I must have been dazzled by your sequened gown.
Mind reposting it for us? Thanks ever so much.
(psst, change those shoes, they clash with your handbag)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper,VR-WC->,SIGINT
Evac Detail
"Come with me if you want to live"
"A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a
second; that second, for a third; and so on, till the bulk of the society
is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left
but for sinning and suffering." -- Thomas Jefferson
Bill Kasper
=On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 01:30:36 GMT, wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
=wrote:
=
=>
=>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
=>
=>>I'm saying you are full of shit, Kurtie.
=>>
=>>And you aren't denying it.
=>
=>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
=>
=>>You don't have any proof as usual, Kurtie?
=>
=>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
=>
=>>Let's see some details, Kurtie.
=>
=>From: wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
=>Newsgroups:
=>alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
=>Subject: Re: FORTH WORTH SHOOTINGS - A CALL TO DISARM VIOLENT
=>NUTCASES!
=>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:58:11 GMT
=>Message-ID: <37e99082...@news.mindspring.com>
=>
=>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
=>
=>>bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net (Bill Kasper) wrote:
=>
=>>> They were hetrosexual fundementalist Christian kids, Krossdress.
=>>> The mortal enemy of you and Your President.
=>>
=>>They were killed by a right wing white supremacist Christian...
=>
=> Cite, please.
=>
=> "Right wing", "white supremacist", "Christian".
=>
=> That shouldn't be difficult to substantiate, but I think you just
=>made it up.
=
=It seems, Bill, that your boy was a member of the Phineas Priests.
Really?
Wow.
Cite?
=These good old boys consider themselves devout Xians,
Afraid your well-calloused, nuckle-dragged hands will burst into flame if
you type the word "Christian", eh Ashbrook...I mean Zepp?
=and strongly
=support seperation of the races, all others being inferior.
I'm quite aware of the Phineas Priesthood, Zip.
I tangled with this same moronic group in my militia days.
However, all I need from you is a *cite* as to his membership.
You'll forgive me if I assume everything you say is a lie.
For your edification, this is what a cite looks like (pass it along to
Krossdressamur too, won't you?):
By L. Brent Bozell III
September 23, 1999
http://www.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col19990923.html
NBC's Jim Cummins reported "Authorities say the gunman then entered the church
sanctuary ranting anti-religious curses and opened fire."
Newsweek quoted witnesses who said Ashbrook shouted, "I can't
believe you believe this junk!"
ABC's Dean Reynolds said the FBI found "writings that condemned religion..."
Sound Christian to you?
Sure, I bet it does.
Did you know that Christians sacrifice babies, and that they have a
secret bible that only they are allowed to see?
Its in a book called "The Elders of Jerusalem"...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his
liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the
right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly."- THE LAW, by Frederic Bastiat, Paris, 1850
Bill Kasper
=
=Gee.
Hmm, still posting from an ISP near Rapid City, though.
I wonder...
laug...@powerfart.com
"wondering" is your main failing, you ignorant kasparloon.
"thinking" is your downfall.
And why we laugh at you.
laug...@powerfart.com
> For your edification, this is what a cite looks like (pass it along to
> Krossdressamur too, won't you?):
>
>By L. Brent Bozell III
Holy shit, kasparloon.
then you cite a scaife paid Larry klayman clone, Bent Nosell.
No fucking wonder we laugh at you.
Bill Kasper
=> Krossdressamur too, won't you?):
=>
=>By L. Brent Bozell III
=
=
=Holy shit, kasparloon.
Unholy shit Gary Roselle, look what you snipped regarding Larry Ashbrook
(your ideological twin brother) :
By L. Brent Bozell III
September 23, 1999
http://www.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col19990923.html
NBC's Jim Cummins reported "Authorities say the gunman then entered the church
sanctuary ranting anti-religious curses and opened fire."
Newsweek quoted witnesses who said Ashbrook shouted, "I can't
believe you believe this junk!"
ABC's Dean Reynolds said the FBI found "writings that condemned religion..."
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kasper,VR-WC->,SIGINT
Evac Detail
The legitimate powers of government extend only to
Kurt Nicklas
We're all laughing at your pathetic attempt to go anonymous, Mr. Roselles.
You're pathetic.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Kurt Nicklas
>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's see some details, Kurtie.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You're not saying 'Please' loudly enough, Voltless? Are all Texans as vapid as you?
>
I'm *still* not hearing 'Please', Voltless.
>
>And you aren't denying it.
That you are a vapid fool? Of course not.
>>>>>>>From what I hear, the exhibit in New York is very well done, powerful art.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The exhibit includes a decomposing animal's head being eaten by real flies,
>>>>>>a shark in a tank of formaldehyde and a picture of the Virgin Mary with
>>>>>>elephant dung and pornographic images all over it. This may be your idea
>>>>>>of 'well done, powerful art', Scott, but it isn't mine.
>>>>>
>>>>>But YOU are not in charge of saying what is art now are you Kurtie?
>>>>
>>>>Neither are you, thank God. But I am in charge of pointing out to you that
>>>>a significant part of the public is extremely offended by this exhibit.
>>>
>>>Is that why thousands have lined up in support of these works of art,
>>>Kurtie?
>>
>>Is that why thousands object to government support for dung-covered Virgins as art?
>
>And they have a right to not attend the exhibit.
And also to protest it being funded by their tax money, Jim Ed.
>
>That's how free will works, Kurtie.
Yes, it is.
>Others have a right to attend the exhibit.
You bet. You going?
>That's how freedom of expression works in America.
Freedom of choice. Bugs the hell out of you, doesn't it?
>Why do you hate free will and freedom of expression Kurtie?
Why do you?
>>>Thanks for helping make it possible.
>>
>>Don't mention it. We're making our point very nicely, thank you.
>
>That you right wing assholes are censoring bastards?
No censoring here at all, Jim Ed.
>You have got that right, Kurtie.
I know. That my Left Wing hate page is still there is a bit of proof, huh?
>How does it feel to be right for a change?
How does it feel to be wrong?
>>>>But they're *Christian*, aren't they? And we *know* how much you *hate*
>>>>Christians, don't we?
>>>
>>>I don't hate Christians, Kurtie.
>>
>>Of course you do. Anyone can see that from your posts. But then you like to try to
>>cover those up by preventing your posts from being archived, isn't it? Anyone who
>>cares can take a look at what you think about Christianity on my page below. By the way,
>>thanks for the *very weak* denial.
>
>I hear you clucking Kurtie but I see no proof of anything except that
>you are a whining asshole.
Take a look at my Left Wing hate page below. You tried to shut it down. I'll bet
Sprynet-Mindspring is still laughing at you.
>>>But I do love hypocrites. Especially fat juicy ones like you with BBQ
>>>sauce.
>>
>>You're a laugh, Jim Ed. You learn that in Poli. Sci school?
>
>We Texans grow up snacking on low IQ morons like you Kurtie.
You learn to say that in Poli. Sci. school also, Voltless Jim?
>>>>>>But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
>>>>>
>>>>>All those folks who are flocking to the Brooklyn Museum are tax
>>>>>payers, Kurtie.
>>>>
>>>>Yep. And so are the ones objecting to the exhibit, including an organization
>>>>of Orthodox Jewish rabbais.
>>>
>>>So they don't go in and life goes on.
>>
>>May I quote you on that the next time you go on a rant about the Christian Coalition or
>>Confederate flags?
>
>You may quote me when I say "You are a moron," Kurtie.
Lame.
>Then you may kiss my liberal ass.
Ditto.
>>Count on it.
>
>You sure know how to look like a right wing asshole, Kurtie.
Ditto, ditto.
>>>That is how things work in America, Kurtie.
>>
>>Ditto.
>
>Did you just fart?
It was you, Jimbo.
>>>You hypocritical assholes haven't managed to change that yet.
>>>
>>>And you won't Kurtie!
>>
>>You're a million laughs, Jim Ed. Is everyone in Houston as shallow and vapid as you?
>>Doesn't seem possible.
>
>I do love bitch slapping you so, Kurtie.
Now I *know* you learned that at UH, KKennemanure.
Ready to put me back in your killfile yet, little boy?
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
johnz
(Scott D. Erb) wrote:
(Snip section which includes Erb's Philistine, cement-head-poly-sci prof's
assertion that "good art" is that which causes "debate, controversy",)
>
>>But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
>
>I feel the same way about the war against Yugoslavia, the war against Iraq,
>and the drug laws...
>
>But I guess those are political issues where none of us will get our way all
>the time.
>ciao, scott
Gee, Erb, I'm glad you're such an understanding guy. I hope you don't mind
that I just sold you for a hundred dollars to the PLA, for use as spare
parts. (Your web site photo convinced General Liang that you have an
especially desirable spleen. Did you know that the worldwide spleen market
is virtually exploding right now?*)
I explained that since some of my tax money has undoubtedly been used,
somewhere, to help pay part of your salary, this means (by my particular
interpretation of the Constitution, relevant laws, precedent, "socially
constructed reality", etc, etc) I own free and clear title to you, and can
legally sell you to any passing organ-transplant farm or crazed body-parts
harvesting farmer (MOTEL HELL, )
Some narrow-minded, dogmatic, binary-thinking fanatics might object to
this , claiming I have no right whatsover to sell you to the Chinese
organ-transplant industry, Erb.
But that's a political issue where none of us will get our way all the time.
ciao, js
* Note to Who Cares?: I have two words for you - spleen futures.
Scott Erb
bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net says...
> Seen W:TROE yet?
Yup, long ago.
> Found that post from Kurt that "outdebated" Robertson?
Hell, that's almost EVERY post between the two!
> You're great. Don't ever change.
Thank you. You could learn a few lessons. You need to actually take your
positions, back them up, and avoid simply making silly assertions and then
refusing to do anything to substantiate them. The obvious lie you made
when you said no taxes and backed away from explaining how (proving you
were lying) is an example. The fact you dare attack Jim on saying his
cite wasn't good enough when he constantly provides cites and real
arguments at least shows that you have no shame. You lack honesty and
show that no shame...I think you probably do need to change!
laug...@powerfart.com
>>> I wonder...
>>"wondering" is your main failing, you ignorant kasparloon.
>>"thinking" is your downfall.
>>And why we laugh at you.
>We're all laughing at your pathetic attempt to go anonymous, Mr. Roselles.
If you "recognize" me, netloon, then I can't be too anonymous, can I
dumbo.
>You're pathetic.
As your fat guru says; "ditto"
laug...@powerfart.com
>>>You're not saying 'Please' loudly enough, Voltless? Are all Texans as vapid as you?
Butt cheeks wrapped around your ears, make it doubtful you'll ever
hear anything kuntie.
Scott Erb
jo...@nomospam.aa.net says...
>
>Gee, Erb, I'm glad you're such an understanding guy.
Why thank you, this is the second compliment I've gotten...Bill K. tells
me I'm great and should never change, now this...gee, I'm blushing...
The rest of your post went off in some really weird ramble, but I
appreciate the compliment!
ciao, scott
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <37f969e7...@news.akl.ihug.co.nz>,
> bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net says...
> > Seen W:TROE yet?
>
> Yup, long ago.
No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
> > Found that post from Kurt that "outdebated" Robertson?
>
> Hell, that's almost EVERY post between the two!
Then you should have no problem whatsoever using the deja archives
(search terms: "Bagboy" "Invitational") to post the compelling
evidence that explains how Foster's glasses ended up 13 feet away
from his body.
Then when you get done with that issue, you can move on to Lochner's
"light reload" conjecture, or his stated assertion that Lisa Foster
identified the *two* guns that made up the one supposedly found with
the body. I don't know how Jody Foster fits into all of this, but I
have his references on that issue, as well, if you like.
Then you can search for the "FLIR FAQ" thread, as well as the other
"Lochner/Robertson FLIR Analysis" thread to replay the devastating
debating techniques that Lochner used to such great effect. If you
need more material (feel free to be 'obsessive', Scott) you can use
the material in this oft-repeated post;
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=488385185
> > You're great. Don't ever change.
>
> Thank you. You could learn a few lessons. You need to actually take your
> positions, back them up, and avoid simply making silly assertions and then
> refusing to do anything to substantiate them.
<Urp>
Sound advice, though it's odd that someone so 'critical' of 'government'
has completely sidestepped the curious detail of Foster's glasses.
Why is that, Scott?
_
Rob Robertson
Rob Robertson
into the chuck of his cordless drill as he wrote:
<snip to chase>
> * Note to Who Cares?: I have two words for you - spleen futures.
Ouch.
_
RR
Scott Erb
>
> Then you should have no problem whatsoever using the deja archives
I don't do deja archives, Rob. Maybe once or twice ever have I been
compelled to look back. That's a waste of time, and ends up just being an
argument about who said what. Especially in something as subjective as
who I think is winning a debate, there is no point to putting effort into
that kind of useless personal dispute.
> Sound advice, though it's odd that someone so 'critical' of 'government'
>has completely sidestepped the curious detail of Foster's glasses.
>
> Why is that, Scott?
Believe it or not, Rob, people can be critical and skeptical of government
power and focus on issues other than the ones that you seem obsessed
about. 50 years from now when people have forgotten Clinton and new
issues have come and gone, you'll still be holding forth about "Foster's
glasses..."
I know that's hard for you too accept, but critical people can focus on
different issues than those that strike your fancy.
Billy Beck
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>
>>In article <37f9508b...@news.akl.ihug.co.nz>,
>>bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net says...
>>>
>>>(Volt...@geocities.com) lied:
>>><snip>
>>>
>>> Still waiting for your cite on this one, Jiz:
>>
>>How amusing, but predictable.
>>
>>When these guys have no rational argument,...
Oh, like KKKennemur's?
>Their problem is that I give them more citations than they care to
>handle.
It's only one, big boy. It shouldn't be difficult for you to
handle.
From: wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
Newsgroups:
alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: FORTH WORTH SHOOTINGS - A CALL TO DISARM VIOLENT
NUTCASES!
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:58:11 GMT
Message-ID: <37e99082...@news.mindspring.com>
Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net (Bill Kasper) wrote:
>> They were hetrosexual fundementalist Christian kids, Krossdress.
>> The mortal enemy of you and Your President.
>
>They were killed by a right wing white supremacist Christian...
Cite, please.
"Right wing", "white supremacist", "Christian".
That shouldn't be difficult to substantiate, but I think you just
made it up.
Kurt Lochner
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > >Bile Kaspar <bill....@usa.net> says...
> > >Seen W:TROE yet?
> >
> > Yup, long ago.
>
>No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
Who cares?
> > >Found that post from Kurt that "outdebated" Robertson?
> >
> > Hell, that's almost EVERY post between the two!
>
>Then you should have no problem whatsoever using the deja archi/../
Who needs the archive, I have my replies, as well as yours, on CD..
>Then when you get done with that issue, you can move on to Lochner's
>"light reload" conjecture, or his stated assertion that Lisa Foster
>identified the *two* guns that made up the one supposed/../
All you have to do is admit you're wrong, Boobie..
Then I'll let it rest..
>Then you can search for the "FLIR FAQ" thread, as well as the other
>"[..]/Robertson FLIR Analysis" thread to replay the devastating
>debating techniques that Lochner used to such great effect. /../
Yeah, where I pointed out that your contention that glass doesn't
permit IR, which would would be news to some fibre optic engineers.
Did you slink off for a week because you were right, and all of a sudden
the laws of physics yeilded to your prayers?
> > >You're great. Don't ever change.
> >
> > Thank you. You could learn a few lessons. You need to actually
> > take your positions, back them up, and avoid simply making silly
> > assertions and then refusing to do anything to substantiate them.
>
> <Urp>
>
>Sound advice, though it's odd that someone so 'critical' of
>'government' has completely sidestepped the curious detail of
>Foster's glasses.
--Your conjecture is easily falsified, and that's why you whine so much..
Rob Robertson
---< reinsert yet another side-step from Scott Erb >---
> > Seen W:TROE yet?
>
> Yup, long ago.
No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
---< ... >---
No answer, no surprise.
---< cont. >---
> > Found that post from Kurt that "outdebated" Robertson?
>
> Hell, that's almost EVERY post between the two!
---< ... >---
> > Then you should have no problem whatsoever using the deja archives
>
> I don't do deja archives, Rob.
But the deja archives 'do' you, Scott. It doesn't really matter
what you or I assert; all *anyone* has to do is go to
http://www.deja.com and insert as many qualifiers as they see
fit to narrow the search to something definitive. Perhaps "Lochner"
"Robertson" "Foster" & ~g (alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater)
will do.
> Maybe once or twice ever have I been compelled to look back.
<*blink*>
Not even Erb Erbertson could come up with something that
insightfully ironic. That's really a very tidy summary of
who and what you are - a context-smearing, history-deleting
'political philosopher' [sic] who will 'look back' whenever
it's convenient to your argument, but it really points to
something a bit more fundamental;
> That's a waste of time, and ends up just being an
> argument about who said what. Especially in something as subjective as
> who I think is winning a debate, there is no point to putting effort into
> that kind of useless personal dispute.
Then your personal 'subjective' opinion is baseless, hence worthless. You
can't cite a single instance where Lochner has 'outdebated' me and you even
admit that determining "who said what" is "a waste of time". That's exactly
why I (and others) have determined that YOU are a waste of time, Scott.
Now, the problem with your curiously disappearing/reappearing newsreader
problem regarding the References: line is that other people don't have a
simple, point-and-click means to review my previous post, especially the
parts you snipped out (like the following);
---< cont. >---
Then you should have no problem whatsoever using the deja archives
(search terms: "Bagboy" "Invitational") to post the compelling
evidence that explains how Foster's glasses ended up 13 feet away
from his body.
Then when you get done with that issue, you can move on to Lochner's
"light reload" conjecture, or his stated assertion that Lisa Foster
identified the *two* guns that made up the one supposedly found with
the body. I don't know how Jody Foster fits into all of this, but I
have his references on that issue, as well, if you like.
Then you can search for the "FLIR FAQ" thread, as well as the other
"Lochner/Robertson FLIR Analysis" thread to replay the devastating
debating techniques that Lochner used to such great effect. If you
need more material (feel free to be 'obsessive', Scott) you can use
the material in this oft-repeated post;
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=488385185
---< end >---
Did you even review this post I handed to you on a silver platter, Erb?
Do you see what you're getting into when you claim that Lochner has
'outdebated' me on *any* issue? I'm serious here, Scott; of all the
people you could have clung to for some kind of support (or whatever
the hell it is you two are doing), Lochner is the absolute *worst*
choice you could have made, and instead of admitting that you're
hopelessly mired in this and slinking away, you continue to parade
around in your Saran Wrap leisure suit.
Please stop it. You're scaring the women and horses.
> > Sound advice, though it's odd that someone so 'critical' of 'government'
> >has completely sidestepped the curious detail of Foster's glasses.
> >
> > Why is that, Scott?
>
> Believe it or not, Rob, people can be critical and skeptical of government
> power and focus on issues other than the ones that you seem obsessed
> about. 50 years from now when people have forgotten Clinton and new
> issues have come and gone, you'll still be holding forth about "Foster's
> glasses..."
>
> I know that's hard for you too accept, but critical people can focus on
> different issues than those that strike your fancy.
But you lie, Erb. I've been an eyewitness to your years-long attempt
to ridicule and side-line any and all discussions regarding the death
of Vince Foster, as this post (one out of many) from two years ago shows;
---< deja replay 1 >---
From: scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
Subject: Re: astonishing new evidence in Foster case
Date: 28 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <5rjl1b$1h4k$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
References: <33D2ED...@ix.netcom.com> <Pine.SOL.3.91.970721133953.5878A-1000
<33dd2ea...@news.mindspring.com>
Organization: University of Maine at Farmington
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
>>*Change of subject. Don't change the subject, Erb. "Face it."
>>*How did Vince get to the Park?
>>
>Roswell aliens beamed him there.
It's funny how Billy thinks that his interpretation of the evidence is
some how superior to that of all the experts and people of both parties
who have examined it in much more detail than he has.
To even engage him on the specifics of an issue about which there is no
question is really to give him a victory. Sorry, Billy.
It's over. Get on with life.
cheers, scott
---< end replay 1 >---
...and here's yet another,...
---< replay 2 >---
From: scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
Subject: Re: astonishing new evidence in Foster case
Date: 24 Jul 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <5r8tuh$10qs$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
References: <33D2ED...@ix.netcom.com> <Pine.SOL.3.91.970721133953.5878A-1000
<33d7ca02...@news.mindspring.com>
Organization: University of Maine at Farmington
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
In article <33d7ca02...@news.mindspring.com>, ain't...@tno.e-mail
says...
> Uhmm, we're not talking about appeals to authority, Erb.
Billy, you've not seen one bit of evidence and have not been invovled in
the case at all. You pick out bizarre conspiracy theories and accept them
as truth because it fits your anti-government lunacy. In fact, you may
not believe the conspiracy theories, you seem to hate government so much
you'd do anything to try to discredit it.
But it's outlandish to think that so many people are involved in some
cover up, and only a few internet kooks are enlightened and know the
truth. The more you bellow about the alleged problems in the case, the
more you make yourself look like a fool.
It's not an appeal to authority, it's recognition that the evidence
doesn't support you.
But I think you know it. You just want to attack government. How
pathetic. Yet entertaining to watch folk like you dance around in fantasy
land. We can shake our heads and say, "strange people in this world..."
cheers, scott
---< end replay 2 >---
You can't "recognize" the evidence because you never *address* it, Erb.
That's what the Bagboy Invitational is all about, namely that Foster's
glasses were found 13 feet away from his body with blood spattered on
them, and yet NOT A SINGLE "AUTHORITY" has explained *how* they got there.
Fiske didn't explain it. Starr didn't explain it. Lochner thinks that
'expelled gases' from the cylinder gap *blew* them there. What do YOU
think, Erb? Does Moldea offer an explanation?
I *could* outdebate both you and Lochner any time I so please (and come
to think of it, I *have* done so many times in the past, as the deja
archives,... oh, that's right, you don't 'do' history), and it's also
interesting how you paint people like Billy Beck above as 'anti-government'
when their careful, considered review of the evidence points to the
rampant criminality of the Clinton administration, and yet when it
suits *your* purposes you pretend to be 'critical of government', except
for the fact that you don't hold any *individual* responsible or
accountable.
You ARE a disingenuous fraud, Erb, and utterly contemptible.
_
Rob Robertson
"No doubt, the fact that totalitarian government, its open
criminality notwithstanding, rests on mass support is very
disquieting. It is therefore hardly surprising that scholars
as well as statesmen often refuse to recognize it, the former
by believing in the magic of propaganda and brainwashing, the
latter by simply denying it,... It is quite obvious that mass
support for totalitarianism comes neither from ignorance nor
from brainwashing."
- Hanah Arendt, _The Origins of Totalitarianism_
preface to Part Three, footnote 1.
Rob Robertson
<snip>
> Yeah, where I pointed out that your contention that glass doesn't
> permit IR, which would would be news to some fibre optic engineers.
So fire up the FLIR FAQ thread, Kurt. If you want to argue that
the system used a refractive, and not a reflective, IR collector
and the the optics were germanium or some other IR-transparent
material at the appropriate wavelengths instead of glass, I'll
concede the point, but the cites I provided showed quite clearly
that glass (SiO2) has an infrared absorption tail that precludes
its use in transmission of IR in the 8 -14 micron band.
> Did you slink off for a week because you were right, and all of a sudden
> the laws of physics yeilded to your prayers?
I'm right no matter *where* I am, Kurt!
> >Sound advice, though it's odd that someone so 'critical' of
> >'government' has completely sidestepped the curious detail of
> >Foster's glasses.
>
> --Your conjecture is easily falsified, and that's why you whine so much..
How did the glasses end up where they did, Kurt?
_
Rob Robertson
Scott Erb
(all deleted, most unread)
Once I saw that your post was an attempt to simply attack, making
accusations, lying, etc. Its nice to know that I'm making you work so
hard in your futile attempt to smear :)
ciao, scott
Scott Erb
Cap...@not.another.piece.of.spam says...
>
>Fraud Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
>>
>> Scott Erb wrote:
>> >
>> > >Bile Kaspar <bill....@usa.net> says...
>> >
>> > Yup, long ago.
>>
>>No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
>
Rob just can't stand that I don't feel like proving to him I watched a
video long ago (even if I remembered the exact date and time I'm sure it
wouldn't convince him), or that I'm not interested in arguing about things
like Vince Foster's glasses. It goads him into long rambling personal
attacks which at least gives him something to spend his time on :)
I learned long ago that not only are debates pointless when one tries to
pull out snippets of old posts to say someone once said something long
ago, but almost nobody other than a small hard core with their minds
already made up reads such pointless drivel. Why bother?
mahab...@my-deja.com
knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com (Kurt Nicklas) wrote:
> In article <7t7neh$oal$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>, scot...@maine.maine.edu opined...
> >
> >In article <7t7kc3$m95$3...@nntp3.atl.mindspring.net>,
> >knic...@NOSPAMrocketmail.com says...
> >>>This art is powerful and, yes, getting people upset. Things that are
> >>>politically incorrect often upset people. Too bad.
> >>
> >>So do burning crosses, burning flags and swastikas scrawled on synogogues.
> >
> >Those could all be part of an art exhibit as well, though if you scrawl
> >something on someone else's property that could be vandalism and thus a crime.
>
> As you know very well, the objections to the 3 acts above do not concern vandalism.
> They concern political correctness, bigotry and offending sensibilities. Not long
> ago a U.S. museum featured an exhibit including a portrait of a prominent Black mayor
> wearing ladies lingeree. Not long after opening a group of Black activists physically
> removed the portrait. There was no outcry of 'censorship'.
FYI, what follows is an excerpt of an article in the October 5 New York
Times:
Of Dung and Its Many Meanings in the Art World
By MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
<paragraph deleted>
"The biggest shock of the exhibition, in fact, is that such an
insubstantial picture could cause so much fuss. The reaction seems
comically disproportionate. The work is insubstantial because it is
about a certain coy use of language and gamesmanship on Ofili's part.
Ofili is playing with the ideas of blasphemy and worship, race and
religion, toying in a gently ironic way, with the space between public
outrage and: private expression to make his own spiritual statement,
which among other things is not original. When modern artists like
Francis Bacon made what could be interpreted as Catholic-bashing
pictures, the results were, for better or worse, a lot more aggressive
and alarming. But they made those pictures in a different climate, and
timing matters.
"So do titles. If Ofili had called his picture "My Friend Mildred," no
one would be standing in line to see it. Visually speaking, there's not
a lot to it.
"A work can be insubstantial and also witty, and that's the case here.
Ofili is a decorative artist, not a heavyweight polemicist, and his
decorations are attractive. Decoration is obviously not a word people
traditionally associate with the materials he uses, but modern art has
turned the meaning of many traditions on their heads. "Holy Virgin
Mary," now behind protective glass as if it were Michelangelo's "Pietą,"
is a big semi-abstract collage, eight feet high and six feet wide,
resting on two balls of resin-covered elephant dung with pins stuck into
them spelling out the words Virgin and Mary.
"The Virgin, simply drawn, is black, in a flowing blue-gray robe, a
flowerlike form, flat against a flat gold backdrop. Small cutouts of
vaginas and buttocks from pornographic magazines are stuck to the
picture to suggest putti. Another ball of dung is meant to be one of the
Virgin's breasts. Like all of Ofili' collages, the work is colorful and
glowing. The first impression it makes, before you decipher the little
cutouts, is that it's cheerful, even sweet. Ofili uses lots of glitter
and splashes of resin to give his surfaces a shimmer, like mosaic. His
inspirations, it seems, include Byzantine art, Gustav Klimt, folk art
and Op Art.
"The works are hands-on and labor-intensive, unlike a lot of other new
British abstraction, which looks cold and mechanical.
"Ofili's defenders say his detractors have it backward, that he's not
blasphemous but pious. They repeat that he is black and Roman Catholic
and that his parents are from Nigeria. Ofili's works refer to African
folk painting, they say. Elephants in Africa represent power. Dung is
meant to suggest fertility.
"African art has always incorporated dung without meaning to be
offensive -- there is an African mask in the Brooklyn Museum made of
wood, honey, metal and dung. Old Master painters used mummy brown, a
pigment consisting of pulverized Egyptian mummies, but no one complains
about the shadows in 18th-century European paintings of the Virgin being
made out of dead people. Another big collage in the show by Ofili,
"Afrodizzia," has balls of dung with the names Miles Davis and Cassius
Clay written on them. That work isn't anti-black."
<remainder of article snipped>
>
> The exhibit includes a decomposing animal's head being eaten by real flies,
> a shark in a tank of formaldehyde and a picture of the Virgin Mary with
> elephant dung and pornographic images all over it. This may be your idea
> of 'well done, powerful art', Scott, but it isn't mine.
>
> But well done or not, the taxpayers have no business supporting it.
FYI, tax monies support the museum itself, not this particular
collection. The Brooklyn Musueum collects and preserves a great deal of
better, more "traditional," art. The fact is that museums cannot get
along on ticket receipts alone, because the costs of collecting and
preserving are higher than what ticket prices would bear. Without tax
monies, there would be no art museums at all. Is that what you want?
B.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Billy Beck
ze...@snowcrest.net (Zepp) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck) wrote:
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>>I'm saying you are full of shit, Kurtie.
>>>
>>>And you aren't denying it.
>>
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>>You don't have any proof as usual, Kurtie?
>>
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>>Let's see some details, Kurtie.
>>
>>From: wj...@mindspring.com (Billy Beck)
>>Newsgroups:
>>alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater,alt.conspiracy,alt.activism,alt.society.liberalism
>>Subject: Re: FORTH WORTH SHOOTINGS - A CALL TO DISARM VIOLENT
>>NUTCASES!
>>Date: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 02:58:11 GMT
>>Message-ID: <37e99082...@news.mindspring.com>
>>
>>Volt...@geocities.com wrote:
>>
>>>bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net (Bill Kasper) wrote:
>>
>>>> They were hetrosexual fundementalist Christian kids, Krossdress.
>>>> The mortal enemy of you and Your President.
>>>
>>>They were killed by a right wing white supremacist Christian...
>>
>> Cite, please.
>>
>> "Right wing", "white supremacist", "Christian".
>>
>> That shouldn't be difficult to substantiate, but I think you just
>>made it up.
>
>It seems....
No kiddin'?
>...Bill, that your boy was a member of the Phineas Priests.
>These good old boys consider themselves devout Xians, and strongly
>support seperation of the races, all others being inferior.
Show your work, Zepp. You're just blowing smoke like you always
do. What you're blowing *might* be true, but I don't believe it: I
think you and KKKennemur are just making it up, and that's because I
know you both to be serious mental defectives with a shattering racist
tic in your net.nerves as well as a well-known <ahem> "tolerance" for
anything remotedly related to religion. Like; especially when The
Lying Bastard's lips are moving about "vivid & painful memories," etc.
Want some ice on that?
laug...@powerfart.com
> But you lie, Erb. I've been an eyewitness to your years-long attempt
>to ridicule and side-line any and all discussions regarding the death
>of Vince Foster, as this post (one out of many) from two years ago shows;
Ignore or discredit a thoroughly laughable conspiracy theory by the
loony right wing?
Surely you see the logic in that, robloon.
Kurt Nicklas
If he's smeared you then it's with your own words.
His post was a worthy piece of work and hit the bullseye. Of course, you
deleted it.
So what's new?
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <37FA20...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
>
> (all deleted, most unread)
>
> Once I saw that your post was an attempt to simply attack, making
> accusations, lying, etc. Its nice to know that I'm making you work so
> hard in your futile attempt to smear :)
Not hard at all, Erb. Point-and-click, copy-and-paste. That's why
your pathetic run-and-hide debating technique exposes you for what
you are (it's spelled out quite clearly in this post).
---< ... >---
No answer, no surprise.
---< cont. >---
---< ... >---
<*blink*>
---< cont. >---
---< end >---
---< replay 2 >---
_
Rob Robertson
> ciao, scott
ta ta, rob
"The elite is not composed of ideologists; its members'
whole education is aimed at abolishing their capacity
for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, between
reality and fiction."
- op. cit., p. 385
Rob Robertson
that I've bothered to respond to a few of his posts lately. Now
he's reduced to swapping chummy posts with one of the most
notorious (as well as proven and documented) liars on Usenet.
I tried to warn you, Erb, and it pains me when otherwise
intelligent people won't accept the obvious.
*sigh*
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> In article <37FA15...@not.another.piece.of.spam>,
> Cap...@not.another.piece.of.spam says...
> >
> >Fraud Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Scott Erb wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >Bile Kaspar <bill....@usa.net> says...
> >> > >Seen W:TROE yet?
> >> >
> >> > Yup, long ago.
> >>
> >>No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
> >
> >Who cares?
>
> Rob just can't stand that I don't feel like proving to him I watched a
> video long ago (even if I remembered the exact date and time I'm sure it
> wouldn't convince him), or that I'm not interested in arguing about things
> like Vince Foster's glasses. It goads him into long rambling personal
> attacks which at least gives him something to spend his time on :)
>
> I learned long ago that not only are debates pointless when one tries to
> pull out snippets of old posts to say someone once said something long
> ago, but almost nobody other than a small hard core with their minds
> already made up reads such pointless drivel. Why bother?
_
RR
Rob Robertson
>
> Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
>
> > But you lie, Erb. I've been an eyewitness to your years-long attempt
> >to ridicule and side-line any and all discussions regarding the death
> >of Vince Foster, as this post (one out of many) from two years ago shows;
>
> loony right wing?
>
> Surely you see the logic in that, robloon.
Except that Scott Erb does neither, as my previous post showed,
therefore your response is illogical.
Scott has not ignored 'a thoroughly laughable conspiracy theory'; on
the contrary, he has inserted himself into numerous discussions in
order to ridicule and dismiss the subject, which is why I included
two posts (out of many) from over two years ago. Those two make my
case, and the deja archive fully supports it.
Scott has also had numerous opportunities to 'discredit' the TLCT
by addressing the facts of the case, and in the present instance,
the curious fact that Foster's glasses were found 13 feet away
from the body with blood spatter on them. How did they get there?
Noone - not Fiske, Starr, nor Erb - has addressed this point.
As I've mentioned to you before, Gary Roselle, I don't classify
myself as 'right wing', nor do I have a 'conspiracy theory'
regarding the death of Vince Foster. What I have is a series
of questions regarding the facts of the case which has engendered
the most absurd and *desperate* Usenet campaign to ignore and
dismiss the evidence provided by government sources I've ever seen.
What's your view, Gary?
_
Rob Robertson
Scott Erb
>
> Scott has not ignored 'a thoroughly laughable conspiracy theory'; on
>the contrary, he has inserted himself into numerous discussions in
>order to ridicule and dismiss the subject, which is why I included
>two posts (out of many) from over two years ago. Those two make my
>case, and the deja archive fully supports it.
And, as you know Rob (though you dishonestly pretend you don't know...you
have the character of Bill Clinton in your convenient ability to try to
twist reality), I long ago said that I was wrong to initially ridicule you
and others for your views, and that I would no longer do so. I had the
strength of character to admit that I was wrong to flame, and apologize
for doing so.
Not that it matters to you -- if you can snip one post out of context to
try to make someone look bad, you will, honesty be damned!
But ultimately such behavior comes back to hurt you. And ultimately I
think I was right to admit my errors a couple years ago and switch to not
discussing the issue and admitting my initial ridicule was wrong.
ciao, scott
Scott Erb
>
>Scott Erb wrote:
> Not hard at all, Erb. Point-and-click, copy-and-paste.
Sigh. OK, once for fun, I'll go through some work myself and show how
full of it you are in your silly little attempts to replace honest
discourse with argumentum ad hominem.
But you can claim a minor victory in that you're getting me to work a bit
in response to your work. But you may not like the result, because it
shows that *you* are the fraud without honesty.
>> > Seen W:TROE yet?
>>
>> Yup, long ago.
>
> No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
If I gave you a day and a place would you believe me? No, you'll not
believe any claim, therefore its not worth trying to convince you. Also,
given that I post my views on a variety of subjects, and on my home page I
have lecture notes and personal information, I think my reputation stands
on its own -- you folks with your little personal vendettas can throw out
insults, but they are futile attempts to try to tackle someone whose logic
and rational argumentation frustrates the hell out of you ;)
> But the deja archives 'do' you, Scott. It doesn't really matter
>what you or I assert; all *anyone* has to do is go to
>http://www.deja.com and insert as many qualifiers as they see
>fit to narrow the search to something definitive. Perhaps "Lochner"
>"Robertson" "Foster" & ~g (alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater)
>will do.
Cool. Let readers interested in it go back and go through the archives.
I stated my opinion -- I think Kurt makes you look like a fool. You and
others have different opinions, that's fine. I can think of nothing more
pointless than to go back and try to find bits and pieces of that debate
and repost it. Talk about boring! Who'd read it?
> Not even Erb Erbertson could come up with something that
>insightfully ironic. That's really a very tidy summary of
>who and what you are - a context-smearing, history-deleting
>'political philosopher' [sic] who will 'look back' whenever
>it's convenient to your argument, but it really points to
>something a bit more fundamental;
Another dishonest tactic by you -- I say I rarely look back in deja news,
and you try to pretend I never look back at all on other issues or history
or anything like that. My lecture page:
http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/lectures.htm
Shows I take history seriously (actually if you followed unit one of my
international relations courses, already deleted from the lecture page as
we're now in unit two, you'd have seen coverage of WWI, the interwar
period, and a lot of history -- politics without history is worthless.)
Nope, you dishonestly and dishonorably tried to make it seem that I never
looked back at all, when obviously I only very rarely look back at what
people said in deja news debates. That's not worth the time.
-snip-
> Now, the problem with your curiously disappearing/reappearing newsreader
>problem regarding the References: line is that other people don't have a
>simple, point-and-click means to review my previous post, especially the
>parts you snipped out (like the following);
That is really the most bizarre attack you've made. Others haven't seen
that problem, I think your reader had a problem or you are just making
that up. (I actually don't have a point and click means to go to the
previous post, if its gone I have to go back and get it -- I didn't even
know such a thing was possible from within a post! I use WINVN).
-long deletion of Rob trying to assert he out debated Kurt-
> But you lie, Erb. I've been an eyewitness to your years-long attempt
>to ridicule and side-line any and all discussions regarding the death
>of Vince Foster, as this post (one out of many) from two years ago shows;
Actually, you know very well (this proves that you are dishonest and
dishonorable again) that I also stated publically on this forum that I was
wrong to simply dismiss you when I don't have the desire to pursue the
Foster case on my own. I apologized for the ridicule. You know that, but
you *conveniently* pretend that I claim I never have ridiculed you for
your conspiracy theory on Foster, and try to dishonestly make it look like
my current stand (that I'm not interested in it, but won't attack you for
your view) is a lie.
I've repeated this many times. I've stated many times that my initial
attacks were unfair (I also said things to Billy like "may the jackboot of
the state come crushing down on your neck, which I also admitted later was
immature and wrong). Yet you just ignore that, repost them without
acknowledging what I said, and then use them to attack. You know what
that is Rob: that is FRAUD on your part. When you say this:
> You ARE a disingenuous fraud, Erb, and utterly contemptible.
You are describing yourself. Its ironic you take a case where I have
publically admitted my reaction was wrong, recanted it, and changed to
make it seem like I am not honest. You twist out of context past posts to
try to simply personally attack, knowing that your attack is a lie, simply
because you don't dare try to deal with the logic and rationality of my
arguments. Not only are you the fraud, but you're a yellow bellied fraud
as well -- afraid of real debate, hiding behind trying to cut and paste
past posts in a manner that makes them seem to say something they are not.
Luckily as a teacher I can feel I can go and work to make sure students
learn to think honestly and critically and don't end up like you!
There, Rob. You got me to do some work to respond. I hope you're
satisfied.
However, it would be more useful to get out of the gutter of personal
attacks.
ciao, scott
Scott Erb
>
>Poor, poor Scotti. It seems I really have him on the ropes
You enjoy claiming things like that, but it would be more effective if
you'd actually make an argument and use logic and rationality to discuss
real issues that matter. A bunch of ad hominem attacks may make one feel
big and tough, but they are rather pointless.
ciao, scott
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <37FA37...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> >
> > Scott has not ignored 'a thoroughly laughable conspiracy theory'; on
> >the contrary, he has inserted himself into numerous discussions in
> >order to ridicule and dismiss the subject, which is why I included
> >two posts (out of many) from over two years ago. Those two make my
> >case, and the deja archive fully supports it.
>
> And, as you know Rob (though you dishonestly pretend you don't know...you
> have the character of Bill Clinton in your convenient ability to try to
> twist reality), I long ago said that I was wrong to initially ridicule you
> and others for your views, and that I would no longer do so. I had the
> strength of character to admit that I was wrong to flame, and apologize
> for doing so.
"Aaah wuz WRONG,... so verruh, verruh wrong, and Aaah've apolijahzed
for my behayvyerr."
This is just more of your *assertion* of a position without actually
*taking* a position, much like your 'criticism of government' ruse.
Actions speak louder than words, Scott, so if you want to suddenly
make things right, you can start by addressing the evidence in the
Foster case, especially the issue of the glasses location.
Surely someone 'critical of government' has some kind of opinion
regarding such a curious fact in the case of a dead White House
lawyer, right?
> Not that it matters to you -- if you can snip one post out of context to
> try to make someone look bad, you will, honesty be damned!
>
> But ultimately such behavior comes back to hurt you. And ultimately I
> think I was right to admit my errors a couple years ago and switch to not
> discussing the issue and admitting my initial ridicule was wrong.
That was just super, Scott. Good for you. You're growing!
> ciao, scott
_
Rob Robertson
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt laughed and re-quoted:
>
> >Fraud Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Scott Erb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Bile Kaspar <bill....@usa.net> says...
> > > >
> > > > Yup, long ago.
> > >
> > >No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
> >
> >
> > > > >Found that post from Kurt that "outdebated" Robertson?
> > > >
> > > > Hell, that's almost EVERY post between the two!
> > >
> >
> > Who needs the archive, I have my replies, as well as yours, on CD..
> >
> > >"light reload" conjecture, or his stated assertion that Lisa Foster
> >
> > All you have to do is admit you're wrong, Boobie..
> >
> > Then I'll let it rest..
> >
> > >debating techniques that Lochner used to such great effect. /../
> >
> > Yeah, where I pointed out that your contention that glass doesn't
> > permit IR, which would would be news to some fibre optic engineers.
> >
> > sudden the laws of physics yeilded to your prayers?
>
<LOL!> You've over-generalized again, from what little you did
understand of my cites and instructions to go and see for yourself..
That you continue to writhe in denial suits me fine, Fraud..
http://www.flir.com/commercial/default.asp
Don't tell us that you can't see the pictures..
> > Did you slink off for a week because you were right, and all of
> > a sudden the laws of physics yielded to your prayers?
>
>I'm right no matter *where* I am, Kurt!
This time, as with many other instances, you're completely wrong..
http://www.flir.com/law_enforcement/default.asp
>and the the optics were germanium or some other IR-transparent
>material at the appropriate wavelengths instead of glass, I'll
>concede the point, but the cites I provided showed quite clearly
>that glass (SiO2) has an infrared absorption tail that precludes
>its use in transmission of IR in the 8 -14 micron band.
Sorry Rube, it doesn't preclude anything, it just gives the IR
a longer focal length onto the objective. Now, quit whining..
--You have no idea how foolish this makes you look..
Kurt Lochner
>
> laug...@powerfart.com wrote:
> >
> >Fraud Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
> >
> > >But you lie, Erb. I've been an eyewitness to your years-long
> > >attempt to ridicule and side-line any and all discussions
> > >regarding the death of Vince Foster, as this post (one out
> > >of many) from two years ago shows;
> >
> > by the loony right wing?
> >
> > Surely you see the logic in that, robloon.
>
[..]
>Scott has not ignored 'a thoroughly laughable conspiracy theory'/../
[..]
>Scott has also had numerous opportunities to 'discredit' the/../
[..]
>As I've mentioned to you before,[..],I don't classify myself
>as 'right wing',
[..]
>nor do I have a 'conspiracy theory' regarding the death /../
--Rob apparently doesn't understand why we toy with him thusly..
Kurt Lochner
> >
> > (all deleted, most unread)
> >
> > Once I saw that your post was an attempt to simply attack, making
> > accusations, lying, etc. Its nice to know that I'm making you work
> > so hard in your futile attempt to smear :)
>
--Yeah, that's why your pathetic whines are so predictable..
Billy Beck
scot...@Maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>However, it would be more useful to get out of the gutter of personal
>attacks.
Well, yeah, except for the fact that it's exactly what you get
for your patented supinity. If you don't like people stepping on you
down there, Scotti, you ought to try standing upright for a change.
Kurt Lochner
>
> Scott Erb opined...
> >
> >Fraud Robertson <rr...@gte.com> says...
> >
> >(all deleted, most unread)
> >
> > Once I saw that your post was an attempt to simply attack, making
> > accusations, lying, etc. Its nice to know that I'm making you work
> > so hard in your futile attempt to smear :)
>
--But only if the words are taken out of context, Knickers..
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <37FA31...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> >
> >Scott Erb wrote:
> > Not hard at all, Erb. Point-and-click, copy-and-paste.
>
> Sigh. OK, once for fun, I'll go through some work myself and show how
> full of it you are in your silly little attempts to replace honest
> discourse with argumentum ad hominem.
>
> But you can claim a minor victory in that you're getting me to work a bit
> in response to your work. But you may not like the result, because it
> shows that *you* are the fraud without honesty.
Fine. Let's have at it, then.
> >> > Seen W:TROE yet?
> >>
> >> Yup, long ago.
> >
> > No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
>
> If I gave you a day and a place would you believe me? No, you'll not
> believe any claim, therefore its not worth trying to convince you.
Where and when did you see it? You can *assert* any kind of
motivation to this hypothetical future response of mine, but
until you provide a place and date, it only serves to support
my contention that you're lying. What do you have to lose?
Post a time and place, and let any responses rest on their
own merit, or lack thereof.
<snip>
> > But the deja archives 'do' you, Scott. It doesn't really matter
> >what you or I assert; all *anyone* has to do is go to
> >http://www.deja.com and insert as many qualifiers as they see
> >fit to narrow the search to something definitive. Perhaps "Lochner"
> >"Robertson" "Foster" & ~g (alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater)
> >will do.
>
> Cool. Let readers interested in it go back and go through the archives.
> I stated my opinion -- I think Kurt makes you look like a fool. You and
> others have different opinions, that's fine. I can think of nothing more
> pointless than to go back and try to find bits and pieces of that debate
> and repost it. Talk about boring! Who'd read it?
As I said before, your opinion is worthless because it's baseless, remember?;
---< replay >---
> That's a waste of time, and ends up just being an
> argument about who said what. Especially in something as subjective as
> who I think is winning a debate, there is no point to putting effort into
> that kind of useless personal dispute.
Then your personal 'subjective' opinion is baseless, hence worthless. You
can't cite a single instance where Lochner has 'outdebated' me and you even
admit that determining "who said what" is "a waste of time". That's exactly
why I (and others) have determined that YOU are a waste of time, Scott.
---< end >---
> > Not even Erb Erbertson could come up with something that
> >insightfully ironic. That's really a very tidy summary of
> >who and what you are - a context-smearing, history-deleting
> >'political philosopher' [sic] who will 'look back' whenever
> >it's convenient to your argument, but it really points to
> >something a bit more fundamental;
>
> Another dishonest tactic by you -- I say I rarely look back in deja news,
> and you try to pretend I never look back at all on other issues or history
> or anything like that.
I didn't say you 'never' look back on history, Erb; I said you look
back on history when it suits your purposes, and when it doesn't, well,
you simply can't be bothered.
> My lecture page: http://violet.umf.maine.edu/~erb/lectures.htm
> Shows I take history seriously (actually if you followed unit one of my
> international relations courses, already deleted from the lecture page as
> we're now in unit two, you'd have seen coverage of WWI, the interwar
> period, and a lot of history -- politics without history is worthless.)
But of course. You're comfortable dissecting history as long as you
stay clear from the history of the criminal Clinton regime. You're
not telling me anything new here, Scott.
> Nope, you dishonestly and dishonorably tried to make it seem that I never
> looked back at all, when obviously I only very rarely look back at what
> people said in deja news debates. That's not worth the time.
Obviously that's not what I said, and the history of what people said
goes directly to their credibility as well as to the value of their
opinion on any given subject. Lochner claimed that 'expelled gases' *blew*
Foster's glasses 19 feet through the air and said that demonstrating
such would be a 'piece of cake'. That first occurred in *February*,
and now in October you're trying to claim that Kurt makes me look
like a fool by NOT supporting his 'expelled gases' theory.
I think that makes YOU look like a fool, Erb.
> -snip-
>
> > Now, the problem with your curiously disappearing/reappearing newsreader
> >problem regarding the References: line is that other people don't have a
> >simple, point-and-click means to review my previous post, especially the
> >parts you snipped out (like the following);
>
> That is really the most bizarre attack you've made. Others haven't seen
> that problem, I think your reader had a problem or you are just making
> that up. (I actually don't have a point and click means to go to the
> previous post, if its gone I have to go back and get it -- I didn't even
> know such a thing was possible from within a post! I use WINVN).
What?!?! Right after I mentioned that little curiosity, Kipawa Condor
also made note of it, so obviously I'm not the only one to see it,
and I didn't make it up. Also, I don't assert that it's indicative
of a *conscious* effort on your part to break historical links; it's
*emblematic* of your propensity to do so.
> -long deletion of Rob trying to assert he out debated Kurt-
It's not an assertion, Erb; it's a proven, documented fact, and
I did so using Lochner's own words, which you would know had you
actually reviewed the post I directed you to;
---< unsnip >---
Then you should have no problem whatsoever using the deja archives
(search terms: "Bagboy" "Invitational") to post the compelling
evidence that explains how Foster's glasses ended up 13 feet away
from his body.
Then when you get done with that issue, you can move on to Lochner's
"light reload" conjecture, or his stated assertion that Lisa Foster
identified the *two* guns that made up the one supposedly found with
the body. I don't know how Jody Foster fits into all of this, but I
have his references on that issue, as well, if you like.
Then you can search for the "FLIR FAQ" thread, as well as the other
"Lochner/Robertson FLIR Analysis" thread to replay the devastating
debating techniques that Lochner used to such great effect. If you
need more material (feel free to be 'obsessive', Scott) you can use
the material in this oft-repeated post;
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=488385185
Did you even review this post I handed to you on a silver platter, Erb?
Do you see what you're getting into when you claim that Lochner has
'outdebated' me on *any* issue? I'm serious here, Scott; of all the
people you could have clung to for some kind of support (or whatever
the hell it is you two are doing), Lochner is the absolute *worst*
choice you could have made, and instead of admitting that you're
hopelessly mired in this and slinking away, you continue to parade
around in your Saran Wrap leisure suit.
Please stop it. You're scaring the women and horses.
---< end >---
> > But you lie, Erb. I've been an eyewitness to your years-long attempt
> >to ridicule and side-line any and all discussions regarding the death
> >of Vince Foster, as this post (one out of many) from two years ago shows;
>
> Actually, you know very well (this proves that you are dishonest and
> dishonorable again) that I also stated publically on this forum that I was
> wrong to simply dismiss you when I don't have the desire to pursue the
> Foster case on my own. I apologized for the ridicule. You know that, but
> you *conveniently* pretend that I claim I never have ridiculed you for
> your conspiracy theory on Foster, and try to dishonestly make it look like
> my current stand (that I'm not interested in it, but won't attack you for
> your view) is a lie.
Good God, you're generating your own word salad. That's a bad sign!
Of course, this doesn't stop you from spouting your worthless, baseless
opinion regarding my debate with Lochner over this issue. What the hell
*is* that, ridicule by proxy?
How did Foster's glasses end up where they did? No answer.
When did you see _Waco: The Rules of Engagement_? You won't say.
Who is to be held accountable for the Waco Massacre? *I* am, according
to you.
You're just a whole bunch of vapid nothin', Erb.
> I've repeated this many times. I've stated many times that my initial
> attacks were unfair (I also said things to Billy like "may the jackboot of
> the state come crushing down on your neck, which I also admitted later was
> immature and wrong). Yet you just ignore that, repost them without
> acknowledging what I said, and then use them to attack. You know what
> that is Rob: that is FRAUD on your part. When you say this:
>
> > You ARE a disingenuous fraud, Erb, and utterly contemptible.
>
> You are describing yourself. Its ironic you take a case where I have
> publically admitted my reaction was wrong, recanted it, and changed to
> make it seem like I am not honest. You twist out of context past posts to
> try to simply personally attack, knowing that your attack is a lie, simply
> because you don't dare try to deal with the logic and rationality of my
> arguments. Not only are you the fraud, but you're a yellow bellied fraud
> as well -- afraid of real debate, hiding behind trying to cut and paste
> past posts in a manner that makes them seem to say something they are not.
So where *is* the dividing line between the 'immature and wrong' Scott Erb
and the 'reasonable debate' Scott Erb? Is it everything before, say, Jan. 1 '99
that should be ignored? April 19th? July 20th? Everything before this post?
Just when *did* your convictions and principles kick in?
> Luckily as a teacher I can feel I can go and work to make sure students
> learn to think honestly and critically and don't end up like you!
As I said previously;
You can't "recognize" the evidence because you never *address* it, Erb.
That's what the Bagboy Invitational is all about, namely that Foster's
glasses were found 13 feet away from his body with blood spattered on
them, and yet NOT A SINGLE "AUTHORITY" has explained *how* they got there.
Fiske didn't explain it. Starr didn't explain it. Lochner thinks that
'expelled gases' from the cylinder gap *blew* them there. What do YOU
think, Erb? Does Moldea offer an explanation?
I *could* outdebate both you and Lochner any time I so please (and come
to think of it, I *have* done so many times in the past, as the deja
archives,... oh, that's right, you don't 'do' history), and it's also
interesting how you paint people like Billy Beck above as 'anti-government'
when their careful, considered review of the evidence points to the
rampant criminality of the Clinton administration, and yet when it
suits *your* purposes you pretend to be 'critical of government', except
for the fact that you don't hold any *individual* responsible or
accountable.
> There, Rob. You got me to do some work to respond. I hope you're
> satisfied.
It eats you up that I won't let go of the central point of this and
get all caught up in your little offshoot side-issues. *YOU* inserted
yourself into _The Bagboy Invitational_ thread and now you can't
explain how the glasses ended up where they did, nor can you point
to *any* instance where Lochner has 'outdebated' me. For some odd
reason you chose to rest what little credibility you had left on the
shoulders of the most thoroughly discredited poster in the 'group,
and you don't have the character to admit it, even to yourself (though
I could be wrong on that last point).
> However, it would be more useful to get out of the gutter of personal
> attacks.
Any time you're ready to address the *facts*, Erb. I'll be here.
> ciao, scott
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt says...> >> > >Bile Kaspar <bill....@usa.net> says...
> >> > >Seen W:TROE yet?
> >> >
> >> > Yup, long ago.
> >>
> >>No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
> >
>
> Rob just can't stand that I don't feel like proving to him I watched a
> video long ago (even if I remembered the exact date and time I'm sure it
> wouldn't convince him), or that I'm not interested in arguing about things
> like Vince Foster's glasses. It goads him into long rambling personal
> attacks which at least gives him something to spend his time on :)
Well, it'd be one thing if Rube'd use some formal methods in his
oft quixotic quests, but he doesn't.. He simply skips the parts
of his otherwise useful informations that do not agree with his
already drawn conclusions, thus avoiding how easily his "theories"
are falsified..
It must really be a mental vacumn inside his head..
> I learned long ago that not only are debates pointless when one tries to
> pull out snippets of old posts to say someone once said something long
> ago, but almost nobody other than a small hard core with their minds
> already made up reads such pointless drivel. Why bother?
Exactly.. Disagree with Fraud, and be prepared for literally years
of obfuscations, evasions, lies, innuendoes, juvenile insults, and
pointless character attacks.. The boy's not gonna exchange ideas
and opinions, he's gonna force his faulty conclusions on anyone
that happens to reply to his verbalrhea..
--And I about fell outta my chair when he claims he's not "right-wing"..
Kurt Lochner
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> > Kurt says...
> > >
> > >Fraud Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Scott Erb wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >Bile Kaspar <bill....@usa.net> says...
> > >> > >Seen W:TROE yet?
> > >> >
> > >> > Yup, long ago.
> > >>
> > >>No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
> > >
> > >Who cares?
> >
> > Rob just can't stand that I don't feel like proving to him I watched a
> > video long ago (even if I remembered the exact date and time I'm sure it
> > wouldn't convince him), or that I'm not interested in arguing about things
> > like Vince Foster's glasses. It goads him into long rambling personal
> > attacks which at least gives him something to spend his time on :)
> >
> > pull out snippets of old posts to say someone once said something long
> > ago, but almost nobody other than a small hard core with their minds
> > already made up reads such pointless drivel. Why bother?
>
You're dreaming again, boy..
>Now he's reduced to swapping chummy posts with one of the most
>notorious (as well as proven and documented) liars on Usenet.
Well, isn't that nice.. Fraud just got splattered again by
a professor of history, and now all he can come up with is
an ad hominem insult directed at me..
Odd how your projections do that to you, boy..
--You take great pains to prove how ignorant you are, Fraud...
Kurt Lochner
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
[..]
> > Sigh. OK, once for fun, I'll go through some work myself and show how
> > full of it you are in your silly little attempts to replace honest
> > discourse with argumentum ad hominem.
> >
> > But you can claim a minor victory in that you're getting me to work a bit
> > in response to your work. But you may not like the result, because it
> > shows that *you* are the fraud without honesty.
>
>Fine. Let's have at it, then.
>
> > >> >Seen W:TROE yet?
> > >>
> > >> Yup, long ago.
> > >
> > >No doubt another lie from Erb. *When* and *where* did you see it?
> >
> > If I gave you a day and a place would you believe me? No, you'll not
> > believe any claim, therefore its not worth trying to convince you.
>
It's been played at several universities, and local libraries Fraud..
Does it matter so much to you that you feel that you must quibble?
> > >But the deja archives 'do' you, Scott. It doesn't really matter
> > >what you or I assert; all *anyone* has to do is go to
> > >http://www.deja.com and insert as many qualifiers as they see
> > >fit to narrow the search to something definitive. Perhaps "Lochner"
> > >"Robertson" "Foster" & ~g (alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater)
> > >will do.
> >
> > Cool. Let readers interested in it go back and go through the archives.
> > I stated my opinion -- I think Kurt makes you look like a fool. You and
> > others have different opinions, that's fine. I can think of nothing more
> > pointless than to go back and try to find bits and pieces of that debate
> > and repost it. Talk about boring! Who'd read it?
>
>As I said before, your opinion is worthless because it's baseless,/../
At least, in your pathologically driven opinions..
>From here, it looks like you're squirming again..
> > -long deletion of Rob trying to assert he out debated Kurt-
>
>It's not an assertion, Erb; it's a proven, documented fact, and
>I did so using Lochner's own words, which you would know had you
>actually reviewed the post I directed you to;
You've deliberately mis-quoted my directing your attentions towards
formal research, and I have (and will continue to repeat) pointed
out that your assertions and conjectures over-look certain facts
that cause your speculation(s) to fall apart at the seams..
>Then you can search for the "FLIR FAQ" thread, as well as the other
>"Lochner/Robertson FLIR Analysis" thread to replay the devastating
>debating techniques that Lochner used to such great effect. /../
Yo, Fraud, I'm in formal imaging research. You aren't, and it shows..
>Do you see what you're getting into when you claim that Lochner has
>'outdebated' me on *any* issue? I'm serious here, Scott; of/../
My, what a neurosis you gotten there Fraud.. You can't even be
wrong once, about the smallest detail, eh? That's a pathology..
>As I said previously;
[yawn]
>That's what the Bagboy Invitational is all about, namely that Foster's
>glasses were found 13 feet away from his body with blood spattered on
>them, and yet NOT A SINGLE "AUTHORITY" has explained *how* they got
>there.
And yet, when invited to try an informal setting/experiment, you
not only refused to co-operate (likely to save face, not just $500),
you chose to insult, ridicule and smear me for even suggesting that
your approach to 'research' was not only impotent, but baseless in
that you sought only the supporting details for your conclusions..
That's not how to build a formal, believable hypothesis, Fraud..
But, you knew that..
>I *could* outdebate both you and Lochner any time /../
--<LOL!> Come and get some, punky-boy..
pithy
says...
Snipped to Jimbo's conclusion about those who disagree with the museum show.
>Just the idol worshipers.
>
>Jesse Ventura has already explained why they are so ignorant.
Hey Jimbo, a few months ago you were saying that Jessie had obviously hit
his head on the mat too many times!!!
Now that Jessie has denigrated religion, he has become *your* GAWD!!!
And in the spirit of Clinton, I'm sure that you also approve of Jessie's
view on groping women, too!!!
You are a feminist's dream!!!
Weak minds
Jay Leno, host of the "Tonight Show," commenting on
Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura's interview with Playboy
magazine: "He said, and I quote, 'Organized religion is a sham
and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in
numbers.' Well, thank God professional wrestling isn't like
that."
Article URL: http://www.washtimes.com/politics/inside.html
>What's your excuse Kurtie?
>
> Volt
>
>Ecrasons l'infame
Hey Jimbo--what are your real core beliefs?
Is one of them "to grope is to be great"?
Bill Kasper
=In article <37FA02...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
=>
=> Then you should have no problem whatsoever using the deja archives
=
=I don't do deja archives, Rob. Maybe once or twice ever have I been
=compelled to look back. That's a waste of time, and ends up just being an
=argument about who said what.
"Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who" - Monty Python
You are a transparent and amazingly *shallow* fraud, Scott.
Audacious and bold, but as a real as a 19th century spirit photograph.
"Research and cites are a waste of time." - Scott Erb
"Warren Beatty: Genius" - Scott Erb
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his
liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the
right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights
constantly."- THE LAW, by Frederic Bastiat, Paris, 1850
Bill Kasper
=jo...@nomospam.aa.net says...
=>
=>Gee, Erb, I'm glad you're such an understanding guy.
=
=Why thank you, this is the second compliment I've gotten...Bill K. tells
=me I'm great and should never change, now this...gee, I'm blushing...
=
=The rest of your post went off in some really weird ramble, but I
=appreciate the compliment!
Yeah, I could understand someone with your apparent grasp of English
having a hard time with comprehension.
I bet Warren Beatty (genius that he is) would understand it.
--------------------------------------------------------
"This country is turning into the only place on
this planet where you can be stupid, lazy, sick and old
and not die. That's not normal." - Anon.
Bill Kasper
=big and tough, but they are rather pointless.
That must be why you use them so often.
"Research and cites are worthless" - Plan 9 from Outer Maine
You're great Scott.
Don't ever change.
Bill Kasper
=Rob Robertson <rr...@gte.com> wrote:
=
=> But you lie, Erb. I've been an eyewitness to your years-long attempt
=>to ridicule and side-line any and all discussions regarding the death
=>of Vince Foster, as this post (one out of many) from two years ago shows;
=
=Ignore or discredit a thoroughly laughable conspiracy theory by the
=loony right wing?
=
=Surely you see the logic in that, robloon.
=
=
Who left the attic unlocked?
Damn it Kennedy...
Drag that thing back upstairs and feed it.
------------------------------------------------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying "nice doggy"
until you can find a rock.
Bill Kasper
=
=(all deleted, most unread)
=
=Once I saw that your post was an attempt to simply attack, making
=accusations, lying, etc. Its nice to know that I'm making you work so
=hard in your futile attempt to smear :)
=ciao, scott
=
Scott, I have a suggestion for you. It is just a slight extension to your
admitted technique of ignoring the past and not bothering with cites.
Why not just killfile Rob, Billy, myself, and anyone else you can't actually
debate on the issues, and then just randomly post that statement addressed
to one of us?
It will save you time, and your "debating style" will remain intact and
completely unchanged.
Bill Kasper
=In article <37FA31...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
=>
=>Scott Erb wrote:
=> Not hard at all, Erb. Point-and-click, copy-and-paste.
=
=Sigh. OK, once for fun, I'll go through some work myself and show how
=full of it you are in your silly little attempts to replace honest
=discourse with argumentum ad hominem.
=
<snip *nothing*>
=
=There, Rob. You got me to do some work to respond. I hope you're
=satisfied.
But...but...
Not a single cite.
Nothing.
Scott Erb
Cap...@not.another.piece.of.spam says...
>It's been played at several universities, and local libraries Fraud..
We even had an open discussion about it afterwards. But why should I care
if he believes me?
(rest deleted, though if lurkers want to look back at Kurt's post, they'll
see one exchange where Kurt outdebated Rob...I don't have to go back to
deja news to find them, they keep showing up!)
Rob Robertson
>
> And I looked, and the Pale Horseman (scot...@Maine.edu (Scott Erb)) said:
> =In article <37FA31...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> =>
> =>Scott Erb wrote:
> =
> =Sigh. OK, once for fun, I'll go through some work myself and show how
> =full of it you are in your silly little attempts to replace honest
> =discourse with argumentum ad hominem.
> =
> <snip *nothing*>
> =
> =satisfied.
>
> But...but...
>
> Not a single cite.
>
> Nothing.
You mean, you noticed that *too*? Here I thought it was just a problem
with my newsreader, or something,...
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his
> liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the
> right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights
> constantly."- THE LAW, by Frederic Bastiat, Paris, 1850
_
Rob
scot...@maine.edu
bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net says...
>
> "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who" - Monty Python
>
> You are a transparent and amazingly *shallow* fraud, Scott.
You love to call names, but it makes you look like the shallow
one...especially since you dodge real discussion.
But hey, sometimes calling names is therapeutic. Internet insults have no
sting, so if it makes you feel better, go ahead and call all the names you
want!
Scott Erb
just a couple snippets of Rob's personal diatribe to show how dishonest it
is...
> But of course. You're comfortable dissecting history as long as you
>stay clear from the history of the criminal Clinton regime. You're
>not telling me anything new here, Scott.
You even praised my condemnation of Clinton's actions in Kosovo! And I
certainly have made it clear that I have no admiration for him. I also
often disagree with some on the "left" on a few issues here. Your attempt
to categorize me fails. I don't like Clinton; I don't think is an honest
fellow. I'm not afraid to criticize him. I am impressed with Bill
Bradley though, at least from the standpoint of personal ethics.
Ach, that's it, the rest was the same old diatribe...not worth the work...
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt says...
>
> > It's been played at several universities, and local libraries Fraud..
>
> We even had an open discussion about it afterwards. But why should I care
> if he believes me?
> (rest deleted, though if lurkers want to look back at Kurt's post, they'll
> see one exchange where Kurt outdebated Rob...I don't have to go back to
> deja news to find them, they keep showing up!)
--Maybe it's a problem with his newsreader, it keeps making him look
stupid..
Rob Robertson
>
> In article <37FA56...@not.another.piece.of.spam>,
>
> >It's been played at several universities, and local libraries Fraud..
>
> We even had an open discussion about it afterwards. But why should I care
> if he believes me?
Did you discuss Dr. Allard's analysis of the IR signatures captured on
the FLIR tape that show automatic gunfire being directed into the back
of the burning building as people were trying to escape?
_Waco: The Rules of Engagement_;
http://www.waco93.com
Testimony of Dr. Allard regarding the FLIR evidence;
http://www.indirect.com/www/dhardy/allard.html
> (rest deleted, though if lurkers want to look back at Kurt's post, they'll
> see one exchange where Kurt outdebated Rob...I don't have to go back to
> deja news to find them, they keep showing up!)
Ha! That'll be the day!
_
Rob Robertson
Scott Erb
bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net says...
> Not a single cite.
I don't see many cites from you. But cites on net debates are often
pointless. URLs are often untrustworthy, and I tend to simply look at
this more like a discussion in a bar. You state what your experience has
taught you, and don't worry about trying to make it sound like an academic
paper. If you don't want to believe me when I note facts from history or
philosophy, that's fine...I feel no compellation to prove anything to
someone as unconcerned with rational discourse as you!
ciao, scott
Scott Erb
bill....@usa.whatareyoulookingat.net says...
>
> Why not just killfile Rob, Billy, myself,
Are you kidding, I have loads of fun with you guys!
You all are some cheap entertainment on a busy day...though if you
actually wanted to engage in real discussion I'd like that even better,
but for cheap entertainment you all do OK. Carry on!
Kurt Lochner
> > >
> > >Scott has not ignored 'a thoroughly laughable conspiracy theory';
It is entirely laughable, and especaily the way you've tried
to mischaracterize your opinions as facts, and not an untested
conjecture that uses only the details that suit your conclusions..
[..]
>Actions speak louder than words, Scott, so if you want to suddenly
>make things right, you can start by addressing the evidence in the
>Foster case, especially the issue of the glasses location.
And you've shown how dishonest you are by not attempting to even
falsify even so much as one minor detail in your conclusions..
--That's why you've been noted as a disengenious Fraud, Robertson..
Kurt Lochner
>
> Scott Erb wrote:
> >
> >
> > > It's been played at several universities, and local libraries Fraud..
> >
> > We even had an open discussion about it afterwards. But why should I care
> > if he believes me?
>
Try not to engage in rhetorical questions, boy..
> > (rest deleted, though if lurkers want to look back at Kurt's post,
> > they'll see one exchange where Kurt outdebated Rob...I don't have
> > to go back to deja news to find them, they keep showing up!)
>
>Ha! That'll be the day!
--Today, like always, and you've again presented faux pseudo-reasonings..
Kurt Nicklas
Was the following therapeutic for you, Scott?
----------------------------
From: scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb)
Subject: Re: !Which laws may Schmucko have broken?
Date: 09 Aug 1998 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <6qllcu$1i72$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
References: <6qi3j3$tdf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <35cd09d9....@news.snowcrest.net> <6qkmmn$s8m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Organization: University of Maine at Farmington
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.society.liberalism,alt.society.liberalism,alt.politics.clinton,alt.impeach.clinton
In article <6qkmmn$s8m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, knic...@rocketmail.com
says...
>
>Among other things I'm good for pointing out pinko cowards like yourself
too
>scared to use their real name. How are things on Mt. Shasta, pinhead?
Ah, another little shitwimp who likes to bring up personal stuff about
people, like where they live, in his impotent attempt to intimidate.
I spit in your face, whomever you are. Your cowardly tactics show your
fundamental frustration in arguing against people like Zepp who are most
certainly your intellectual superiors. Now, go crawl back in the gutter,
little boy. I look down my nose at you. You're impotent pond scum.
-------------------------------
Did that make you feel better? I hope so.
Kurt Nicklas
http://tiberias.home.sprynet.com/leftwinghate.htm