MM work schedule

[Hugh Lawson]

MM's work schedule appears to concide with the Japan work week, which
acc. wikipedia is Monday-Friday. Due to the international date line, as
I understand, Japan is about a full day ahead of us here in North
Carolina.

This raises the question, does MM impersonate a Japan government
official (i.e. "Mito Minister") on a computer provided by his day job?

Has he been using this same day-job computer to send me savagely abusive
emails? What does the Japan legal code say about this practice?

Is this why MM is reluctant to let his actual identity slip out?

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:35:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I've been assuming he is a minister in the religious sense. Perhaps a
Mormon missionary in Japan. Or some hellfire and brimstone Protestant
sect not based in the South. Why would a Canadian be a Japanese
government official?

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:

>
> I've been assuming he is a minister in the religious sense.

This is quite credible, A.Lurker.

> Perhaps a
> Mormon missionary in Japan. Or some hellfire and brimstone Protestant
> sect not based in the South. Why would a Canadian be a Japanese
> government official?

He isn't. That's the idea communicated by "impersonate".

He's pretending.

hl

[A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com>
wrote:

My point is I don't think he's pretending to be a government minister.
(Correct me if he has he ever done so explicitly.) I believe he
really is some sort of religious minister (perhaps broadly speaking).
He certainly has the enthusiastic, highly judgmental condemnation and
smug self-righteous that I associate with most Christians these days.

[Hugh Lawson]

A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:


> My point is I don't think he's pretending to be a government minister.

Tell us more about your thoughts.

HL

[Hugh Lawson]

Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:

> A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
>
>> My point is I don't think he's pretending to be a government minister.

HL wrote:
> Tell us more about your thoughts.

That was a little rude on my part. To me it seems idle to *debate* the
question of what MM means by his sobriquet.

If MM wants to explain why he goes by the comically absurd title of Mito
Minister, then he can do this. A.Lurker is as entitled as anybody else
to speculate. LOL.

[Joel Edge]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:35:05 -0400, A.Lu...@who-knows-where.com wrote
(in article <pgo388lhcjqli7hje...@4ax.com>):

He's claimed to work for the UN. He's claimed to an expatriate from South
Africa who fought apartheid. All made up. He's a Canadian trekkie and self
confessed bigot who hates southerners. He seems to be very familiar with the
Canadian welfare system and latin written on bathroom walls. What does that
tell you?

[slotrot]

What does that tell us about what?
Please Mr. Edge, tell us what "YOU" know about the "Canadian welfare system".
My bet is you know little about Canada, period.

[Joel Edge]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:42:54 -0400, slotrot wrote
(in article <3280d906-e813-4045...@googlegroups.com>):

Very little about the Canadian welfare system. I have been to Canada a few
times. Traveled up to several places to repair machinery. Like the US, if you
get out in the country side and away from the large cities, a nice place.
Very clean, very regulated. A bit too regulated for my taste. Owen Sound,
Ontario was a very nice place.
I know little about Latin vulgarity written on bathroom walls. I don't think
I've missed anything on that score.

[MITO MINISTER]

Private computer.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 20, 6:37 am, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 12:35:31 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>

A Mormon? Are you whack? Not religious. The "minister" part is a long
story.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 21, 9:26 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:42:54 -0400, slotrot wrote
> (in article <3280d906-e813-4045...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, 20 October 2012 08:21:08 UTC-4, Joel Edge  wrote:

> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:35:05 -0400, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote
>
> >> (in article <pgo388lhcjqli7hjev2f5opknmm6pic...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
>
> >>> wrote:

Owen Sound? Never heard of it. Big cities are the place to be. Urban
life IS civilization. Never claimed the UN. The SA part succeeded in
drawing out the gullible. To assume that I am a religious zealot is
absurd. I am a card-carrying secular humanist. Urban. Liberal. Pro-
union. Pro-immigrant. Not PC, though.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 21, 9:26 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:42:54 -0400, slotrot wrote
> (in article <3280d906-e813-4045...@googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Saturday, 20 October 2012 08:21:08 UTC-4, Joel Edge  wrote:

> >> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:35:05 -0400, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote
>

> >> (in article <pgo388lhcjqli7hjev2f5opknmm6pic...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
>
> >>> wrote:

You certainly haven't, but you have missed out on a Classical
education. One word: Jesuits.

[slotrot]

Owen Sound is a nice little place. Great fishing.

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:56:30 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<7d7991dc-765e-4ec4...@u4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 21, 9:26ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:42:54 -0400, slotrot wrote
>> (in article <3280d906-e813-4045...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 08:21:08 UTC-4, Joel Edge ï¿œwrote:

>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:35:05 -0400, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote
>>
>>>> (in article <pgo388lhcjqli7hjev2f5opknmm6pic...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>>
>>>>>>> I've been assuming he is a minister in the religious sense.
>>
>>>>>> This is quite credible, A.Lurker.
>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps a
>>

>>>>>>> Mormon missionary in Japan. ï¿œOr some hellfire and brimstone Protestant
>>
>>>>>>> sect not based in the South. ï¿œWhy would a Canadian be a Japanese

>>
>>>>>>> government official?
>>
>>>>>> He isn't. That's the idea communicated by "impersonate".
>>
>>>>>> He's pretending.
>>
>>>>>> hl
>>
>>>>> My point is I don't think he's pretending to be a government minister.
>>

>>>>> (Correct me if he has he ever done so explicitly.) ï¿œI believe he

UN? Yes, you did. One of your laughable fabrications. Almost as funny as the
South African story. Of course; knowing you from your posts, I realize a
rabbit like you has little to no courage. Certainly not enough to actually
sacrifice yourself for a cause. Any cause.

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 07:00:28 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<86095e44-f2f1-4a30...@rj6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 21, 9:26ï¿œpm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:42:54 -0400, slotrot wrote
>> (in article <3280d906-e813-4045...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>>> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 08:21:08 UTC-4, Joel Edge ï¿œwrote:

>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:35:05 -0400, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote
>>
>>>> (in article <pgo388lhcjqli7hjev2f5opknmm6pic...@4ax.com>):
>>
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>>
>>>>>>> I've been assuming he is a minister in the religious sense.
>>
>>>>>> This is quite credible, A.Lurker.
>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps a
>>

>>>>>>> Mormon missionary in Japan. ï¿œOr some hellfire and brimstone Protestant
>>
>>>>>>> sect not based in the South. ï¿œWhy would a Canadian be a Japanese

>>
>>>>>>> government official?
>>
>>>>>> He isn't. That's the idea communicated by "impersonate".
>>
>>>>>> He's pretending.
>>
>>>>>> hl
>>
>>>>> My point is I don't think he's pretending to be a government minister.
>>

>>>>> (Correct me if he has he ever done so explicitly.) ï¿œI believe he

>>
>>>>> really is some sort of religious minister (perhaps broadly speaking).
>>
>>>>> He certainly has the enthusiastic, highly judgmental condemnation and
>>
>>>>> smug self-righteous that I associate with most Christians these days.
>>
>>>> He's claimed to work for the UN. He's claimed to an expatriate from South
>>
>>>> Africa who fought apartheid. All made up. He's a Canadian trekkie and self
>>
>>>> confessed bigot who hates southerners. He seems to be very familiar with
>>>> the
>>
>>>> Canadian welfare system and latin written on bathroom walls. What does
>>>> that
>>
>>>> tell you?
>>
>>> What does that tell us about what?
>>> Please Mr. Edge, tell us what "YOU" know about the "Canadian welfare
>>> system".
>>
>>> My bet is you know little about Canada, period.
>>
>> Very little about the Canadian welfare system. I have been to Canada a few
>> times. Traveled up to several places to repair machinery. Like the US, if
>> you
>> get out in the country side and away from the large cities, a nice place.
>> Very clean, very regulated. A bit too regulated for my taste. Owen Sound,
>> Ontario was a very nice place.
>> I know little about Latin vulgarity written on bathroom walls. I don't think
>> I've missed anything on that score.
>
> You certainly haven't, but you have missed out on a Classical
> education. One word: Jesuits.

If it produces creatures of PC conformity like you, then I've missed out on
nothing.

[hla...@triad.rr.com]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:


> If it produces creatures of PC conformity like [mm]

Let me offer a different view.

MM imo is not pc. PC people are usually motivated by sympathy for
others, esp. those they believe are injured by speech habits of the
majority.

9/10 of PC merely tries to persuade the majority to change speech
habits.

I've never seen MM display any kind of empathy. My suspicion is that he
doesn't display any because he doesn't have any; it just isn't included
in his pssychological makeup.

So, why flame and bait southerners? He enjoys the feeling that he's
inflicting distress on this. Or so I believe. The internet has created
a scene for some to enjoy this kind of pleasure.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 22, 9:09 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 06:56:30 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
> (in article

> <7d7991dc-765e-4ec4-af63-e034d1b09...@u4g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 21, 9:26 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 10:42:54 -0400, slotrot wrote
> >> (in article <3280d906-e813-4045...@googlegroups.com>):
>

> >>> On Saturday, 20 October 2012 08:21:08 UTC-4, Joel Edge  wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:35:05 -0400, A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com wrote
>
> >>>> (in article <pgo388lhcjqli7hjev2f5opknmm6pic...@4ax.com>):
>
> >>>>> On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0400, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com>
>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> A.Lur...@who-knows-where.com writes:
>
> >>>>>>> I've been assuming he is a minister in the religious sense.
>
> >>>>>> This is quite credible, A.Lurker.
>
> >>>>>>> Perhaps a
>

> >>>>>>> Mormon missionary in Japan.  Or some hellfire and brimstone Protestant
>
> >>>>>>> sect not based in the South.  Why would a Canadian be a Japanese

>
> >>>>>>> government official?
>
> >>>>>> He isn't. That's the idea communicated by "impersonate".
>
> >>>>>> He's pretending.
>
> >>>>>> hl
>
> >>>>> My point is I don't think he's pretending to be a government minister.
>

> >>>>> (Correct me if he has he ever done so explicitly.)  I believe he

Nope. Another Perfesser type made that guess.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 23, 2:44 am, hlaw...@triad.rr.com wrote:

Edge flames and baits African-Americans. I point this out and shove
his shit right back at 'im. It's no pleasure. It's called "smashing a
neo-Confederate"!

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:


> Edge flames and baits African-Americans. I point this out and shove
> his shit right back at 'im. It's no pleasure. It's called "smashing a
> neo-Confederate"!

You don't just flame Edge, Mito Minister. You have called for the death
of an entire population, without regard for their age, condition, sex,
or inidividual innocence of the charge you lay against the population.

Your hatred of Edge doesn't excuse that. There is something missing in
your intellectual and ethical makeup. You are not normal.

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 08:07:04 -0400, slotrot wrote
(in article <6683b268-da68-4440...@googlegroups.com>):

Looked lovely. I was there to work. My boss probably wouldn't have gone for
the 'I need to go fishing' thing. Bosses aren't known for that.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 23, 8:42 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

You are not normal. The world has passed you by and you and Edge can't
accept it. You can't accept the fact that your ancestors were WRONG
and their way of life is gone forever.

[Hugh Lawson]

Once again you are pretending to know what you do not know.

That's the hallmark of your intellectual life.

HL

[MITO MINISTER]

Your White Protestant society is doomed, and you are helpless to
prevent it.

I say we hurry it along with MASS IMMIGRATION of non-White, non-
Christians into the South..

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:


> Your White Protestant society is doomed, and you are helpless to
> prevent it.
>
> I say we hurry it along with MASS IMMIGRATION of non-White, non-
> Christians into the South..

What a sad sack you are, MM. I pity you.

hl

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 24, 7:58 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

Scared of the poor, tired, huddles masses, White Boy? You do know that
your society is on the verge of extinction, do you not?

[Hugh Lawson]

But you are the one who is afraid to attach your name to your
statements.

HL

[Hugh Lawson]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

> your society is on the verge of extinction

MM, you have a strange fondness for turning over in your mind ideas of mass
deaths. You are not a normal person.

There must be something disturbing about your past.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 24, 8:50 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

You spout the same shit over and over again in a VAIN attempt to
deflect critiscism where it truly belongs - with the God-Damned White
South!

Admit it, your White Christian Patriarchal Society is on the ropes and
headed for OBLIVION - where it belongs!

[hla...@triad.rr.com]

MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Oct 24, 8:50 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>> > your society is on the verge of extinction
>>
>> MM, you have a strange fondness for turning over in your mind ideas of mass
>> deaths.  You are not a normal person.
>>
>> There must be something disturbing about your past.
>
> You spout the same shit over

How big the "white south " looms in your mind, while to them you are
invisible.

[Joel Edge]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:37:40 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<d2007c05-8480-4374...@sh1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 23, 2:44ï¿œam, hlaw...@triad.rr.com wrote:
>> Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>>> If it produces creatures of PC conformity like [mm]
>>
>> Let me offer a different view.
>>

>> MM imo is not pc. ï¿œPC people are usually motivated by sympathy for

>> others, esp. those they believe are injured by speech habits of the
>> majority.
>>
>> 9/10 of PC merely tries to persuade the majority to change speech
>> habits.
>>

>> I've never seen MM display any kind of empathy. ï¿œMy suspicion is that he

>> doesn't display any because he doesn't have any; it just isn't included
>> in his pssychological makeup.
>>

>> So, why flame and bait southerners? ï¿œHe enjoys the feeling that he's
>> inflicting distress on this. ï¿œOr so I believe. ï¿œThe internet has created

>> a scene for some to enjoy this kind of pleasure.
>
> Edge flames and baits African-Americans. I point this out and shove
> his shit right back at 'im. It's no pleasure. It's called "smashing a
> neo-Confederate"!

Again, making shit up? I actually post very little about blacks
(African-Americans, really!!) and that is for a calculated purpose. You're
just not smart enough to figure out why, and that drives you nuts.

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 04:04:20 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<16341a9a-19c7-49e7...@tr7g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>):

> Your White Protestant society is doomed,

You may have struck a lode of truth there, Hugh. I'm thinking Mito may have
had some bad experiences with religion.

[Joel Edge]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 23:44:23 -0400, MITO MINISTER wrote
(in article
<6d1dc625-a259-4788...@ph9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>):

> On Oct 24, 8:50ï¿œpm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>>> your society is on the verge of extinction
>>
>> MM, you have a strange fondness for turning over in your mind ideas of mass

>> deaths. ï¿œYou are not a normal person.

>>
>> There must be something disturbing about your past.
>
> You spout the same shit over and over again in a VAIN attempt to
> deflect critiscism where it truly belongs - with the God-Damned White
> South!
>
> Admit it, your White Christian Patriarchal Society is on the ropes and
> headed for OBLIVION - where it belongs!

And some father issues apparently.

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:44:30 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote
(in article <876262h...@triad.rr.com>):

People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't
argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that don't
fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.

[hla...@triad.rr.com]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:


> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't
> argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that don't
> fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.

To use PC in this way is right-wing PC.

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 25, 9:58 pm, Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:44:30 -0400, hlaw...@triad.rr.com wrote
> (in article <876262h05d....@triad.rr.com>):

>
>
>
>
>
> > Joel Edge <joele...@planttel.net> writes:
>
> >> If it produces creatures of PC conformity like [mm]
>
> > Let me offer a different view.
>
> > MM imo is not pc.  PC people are usually motivated by sympathy for
> > others, esp. those they believe are injured by speech habits of the
> > majority.
>
> > 9/10 of PC merely tries to persuade the majority to change speech
> > habits.
>
> > I've never seen MM display any kind of empathy.  My suspicion is that he
> > doesn't display any because he doesn't have any; it just isn't included
> > in his pssychological makeup.
>
> > So, why flame and bait southerners?  He enjoys the feeling that he's
> > inflicting distress on this.  Or so I believe.  The internet has created
> > a scene for some to enjoy this kind of pleasure.
>
> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't
> argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that don't
> fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.

That's rich. The White South was/is all about intimidation.

[Joel Edge]

On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:56:31 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote
(in article <87y5iu4...@triad.rr.com>):

Sorry, correct is a useless word. The only thing that gives the term it's
teeth is 'politically'.
And adding 'right-wing' to it proves my point. You can't soft-pedal PC as
"motivated by sympathy" then condemn it using the same words. The "PC people"
motivated by sympathy may dislike some words, fortunately; it's not their job
to pick my words for me.

Disclaimer: Words should always selected with courtesy in mind. As long as
said courtesy is returned.

[hla...@triad.rr.com]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:

> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:56:31 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote
> (in article <87y5iu4...@triad.rr.com>):
>
>> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They can't
>>> argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that
>>> don't
>>> fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.
>>
>> To use PC in this way is right-wing PC.
>>
>
> Sorry, correct is a useless word. The only thing that gives the term it's
> teeth is 'politically'.
> And adding 'right-wing' to it proves my point. You can't soft-pedal PC as
> "motivated by sympathy" then condemn it using the same words.

I'm describing, not condemning.

Political correctness is nothing more than the effort to shape community
life, and politics, by shaping the speech used in them. Left-wingers do
it; right-wingers do it.

> The "PC people"
> motivated by sympathy may dislike some words, fortunately; it's not their job
> to pick my words for me.

They don't pick your words at all, but they can urge organizations to
stop using some words. They can get churches to change creeds, hymn
texts, and so on. They can persuade colleges to stop calling female
students "girls" in their literature. By and by the attacked usages
will start looking outdated, even evidence of bigoted attitudes.

They do it all the time. They can build up social pressure so that
others mock you for your words; or if they are not strong enough for
this, they can roll their eyes, and snicker.

That is what most so-call "political-correctness" does. Righties do it
too. If anything, they are more attentive to terminology than lefties.
The whole attack on PC is itself an effort to shape speech for
right-wing purposes: it is right-wing PC.

[Joel Edge]

On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 09:09:04 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote
(in article <87ehkl5...@triad.rr.com>):

> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:56:31 -0400, hla...@triad.rr.com wrote
>> (in article <87y5iu4...@triad.rr.com>):
>>
>>> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> People who would enforce PC are people with one belief. Control. They
>>>> can't
>>>> argue effectively so resort to intimidation. They don't like words that
>>>> don't
>>>> fit into their perception of the world. That fits Mito.
>>>
>>> To use PC in this way is right-wing PC.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, correct is a useless word. The only thing that gives the term it's
>> teeth is 'politically'.
>> And adding 'right-wing' to it proves my point. You can't soft-pedal PC as
>> "motivated by sympathy" then condemn it using the same words.
>
> I'm describing, not condemning.

OK. Then describe the difference in PC and "right wing PC".

>
> Political correctness is nothing more than the effort to shape community
> life, and politics, by shaping the speech used in them. Left-wingers do
> it; right-wingers do it.

And "shaping community life" doesn't worry you? Having a group of people
declare themselves the verbal gate keepers shouldn't be a concern? There was
a mechanism for shaping community life at one time, it was called peer
pressure. Unfortunately; that was gutted by various "you don't know what
they've been through" and "the poor man had a bad childhood" type of
bullshit. Don't get me wrong. I understand that some people have had a hard
life. That comes under the heading of kindness. It dies not extend to blaming
society for bad behavior. That lowers the standards for everyone.

>
>> The "PC people"
>> motivated by sympathy may dislike some words, fortunately; it's not their
>> job
>> to pick my words for me.
>
> They don't pick your words at all, but they can urge organizations to
> stop using some words. They can get churches to change creeds, hymn
> texts, and so on. They can persuade colleges to stop calling female
> students "girls" in their literature. By and by the attacked usages
> will start looking outdated, even evidence of bigoted attitudes.

They've tried but it hasn't worked so far.
And this doesn't concern you? "Urge" is a rather interesting way to put it.
So what's the problem with the term 'girls'. It's been used to describe a
female of a certain age group for years. I suspect it's because it removes a
way of describing a type of behavior as in: "Quit acting like a little girl".
No thanks, I'll hold on to that verbal bomb for dear life. Guaranteed to make
anyone that's acting like a hysterical ass straighten up.

>
> They do it all the time. They can build up social pressure so that
> others mock you for your words; or if they are not strong enough for
> this, they can roll their eyes, and snicker.

I wish them luck on that score. If you disarm yourself to the wishes of the
tender and sensitive then you can't argue. You're using their words to make
your case.

>
> That is what most so-call "political-correctness" does. Righties do it
> too. If anything, they are more attentive to terminology than lefties.
> The whole attack on PC is itself an effort to shape speech for
> right-wing purposes: it is right-wing PC.
>
>

So arguing against PC is PC? Sounds like some circular logic there.
If I use a word that you (hypothetically) or someone else doesn't like and am
corrected, then I tell you (hypothetically) or the verbal gate keeper to mind
their own damn business, that is restricting their speech in some way? I'm
sorry, I can't see it.

That brings to mind the old Dixie Chicks controversy. They got up and spoke
their mind. Works for me. Peer pressure took care of the rest. There were
some, after their career went to hell, that said 'how can you restrict their
free speech' (or something of that nature)? Nope, along with free speech
comes responsibility for that free speech. The fans that deserted them
weren't restricting the groups free speech, they just didn't agree with it.
Some group of gate-keepers saying 'you can't condemn them' don't get it.
Being a well paid court-jester (Dixie Chicks) doesn't give you the option of
pissing off the king (the public).

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:


> And "shaping community life" doesn't worry you? Having a group of people
> declare themselves the verbal gate keepers shouldn't be a concern?

No. I suggest you stop worrying about it too, as a philosophical issue.

[ snip ]

> So arguing against PC is PC? Sounds like some circular logic there.
> If I use a word that you (hypothetically) or someone else doesn't like and am
> corrected, then I tell you (hypothetically) or the verbal gate keeper to mind
> their own damn business, that is restricting their speech in some way? I'm
> sorry, I can't see it.

Yes. You made it clear earlier that you resist because you have
different political objectives.

> That brings to mind the old Dixie Chicks controversy. They got up and spoke
> their mind. Works for me. Peer pressure took care of the rest. There were
> some, after their career went to hell, that said 'how can you restrict their
> free speech' (or something of that nature)? Nope, along with free speech
> comes responsibility for that free speech. The fans that deserted them
> weren't restricting the groups free speech, they just didn't agree with it.
> Some group of gate-keepers saying 'you can't condemn them' don't get it.
> Being a well paid court-jester (Dixie Chicks) doesn't give you the option of
> pissing off the king (the public).

So the Dixie Chicks violated your version of PC, and you approve of how
they were made to pay for this. That's how I interpret this para.

From my perspective, you want to make your PC OK, while stigmatizing
lefty PC as bad and unfair, as a general proposition. As I see it, you
also are trying to shape community life by shaping the rules of
discussion.

I don't object to this in principle, because I know that it has always
been going on, on all sides.

And yes, I believe that you like rules that give your side a
greater advantage. Everybody does.

hl

[MITO MINISTER]

On Oct 24, 7:58 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

Whassup, Boy? Don't like them thar "Furriners" ? You are a piece-of-
shit Presbyterian segregationist.

[Hugh Lawson]

What is a furriner? Must be Canadian argot.

[Joel Edge]

On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:16:04 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87liesa...@gmail.com>):

> Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:
>
>
>> And "shaping community life" doesn't worry you? Having a group of people
>> declare themselves the verbal gate keepers shouldn't be a concern?
>
> No. I suggest you stop worrying about it too, as a philosophical issue.
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> So arguing against PC is PC? Sounds like some circular logic there.
>> If I use a word that you (hypothetically) or someone else doesn't like and
>> am
>> corrected, then I tell you (hypothetically) or the verbal gate keeper to
>> mind
>> their own damn business, that is restricting their speech in some way? I'm
>> sorry, I can't see it.
>
> Yes. You made it clear earlier that you resist because you have
> different political objectives.

I have very few political objectives. There's only one. To see the Democrat
party reduced to history. The rest aren't objectives, unless you count as an
objective freedom, smaller government and less global adventurism.

>
>> That brings to mind the old Dixie Chicks controversy. They got up and spoke
>> their mind. Works for me. Peer pressure took care of the rest. There were
>> some, after their career went to hell, that said 'how can you restrict
>> their
>> free speech' (or something of that nature)? Nope, along with free speech
>> comes responsibility for that free speech. The fans that deserted them
>> weren't restricting the groups free speech, they just didn't agree with it.
>> Some group of gate-keepers saying 'you can't condemn them' don't get it.
>> Being a well paid court-jester (Dixie Chicks) doesn't give you the option
>> of
>> pissing off the king (the public).
>
> So the Dixie Chicks violated your version of PC, and you approve of how
> they were made to pay for this. That's how I interpret this para.

Nope. They have a right and freedom to express their opinion. I never liked
them anyway. They were a bad example of country music. If you're going to
argue a "version" of PC, then you'll have to ask their fans. Or...what were
their fans.

>
> From my perspective, you want to make your PC OK, while stigmatizing
> lefty PC as bad and unfair, as a general proposition. As I see it, you
> also are trying to shape community life by shaping the rules of
> discussion.

I will not admonish you personally, but I do reserve the right to point,
laugh and post video. That makes all the difference.

[Joel Edge]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 08:31:29 -0400, Hugh Lawson wrote
(in article <87390x8...@gmail.com>):

> MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

>
>> On Oct 24, 7:58 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> MITO MINISTER <cigarmanw...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> Your White Protestant society is doomed, and you are helpless to
>>>> prevent it.
>>>
>>>> I say we hurry it along with MASS IMMIGRATION of non-White, non-
>>>> Christians into the South..
>>>

>>> What a sad sack you are, MM.  I pity you.

>>>
>>> hl
>>
>> Whassup, Boy? Don't like them thar "Furriners" ? You are a piece-of-
>> shit Presbyterian segregationist.
>
> What is a furriner? Must be Canadian argot.

He must have meant "furrier". You know how them Canadians get all hot and
bothered over animal pelts.

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:

>> What is a furriner? Must be Canadian argot.
>
> He must have meant "furrier". You know how them Canadians get all hot and
> bothered over animal pelts.

A plausible suggestion.

[Hugh Lawson]

Joel Edge <joel...@planttel.net> writes:

>
> I will not admonish you personally, but I do reserve the right to point,
> laugh and post video. That makes all the difference.

Well this is a touchy topic on which there is variety of opinion.