Fred Weiss of Paper Tiger is a liar.
Mark
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_frm
/thread/dba0a23966222e91/88b15b0c8f5b1a5f#88b15b0c8f5b1a5f
Fred Weiss, president of Paper Tiger, writes:
"Ayn Rand herself is ok because in Mork's own words
'she didn't flaunt her Jewishness'."
There are no such words. This is a bare-faced lie.
The question is, why did Mr. Weiss utter such a lie when -- if he
thinks rationally at all -- he knows he'll be called on it?
Mark
Chris Cathcart
A search of "rand flaunt" turned up:
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
From: Mark <x...@nexet.net> - Find messages by this author
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:54:21 +0000 (UTC)
Local: Mon, Sep 19 2005 9:54 am
Subject: Re: Dr Yaron Brook on the War on Terror
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | View Thread | Show original |
Report Abuse
One thing she didn't do is flaunt it. You can read Ayn Rand 'till
you're blue in the face without finding out she was Jewish. It wasn't
important to her.
Nor was Israel. Only once does she mention Israel in her writing, and
then -- as I have stated -- her opinion was based on limited knowledge.
Reggie Perrin
Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > [...]
> > Fred Weiss, president of Paper Tiger, writes:
> > "Ayn Rand herself is ok because in Mork's own words
> > 'she didn't flaunt her Jewishness'."
> >
> > There are no such words. This is a bare-faced lie.
> >
> > The question is, why did Mr. Weiss utter such a lie when -- if he
> > thinks rationally at all -- he knows he'll be called on it?
>
> A search of "rand flaunt" turned up:
>
> One thing she didn't do is flaunt it. You can read Ayn Rand 'till
> you're blue in the face without finding out she was Jewish. It wasn't
> important to her.
Well spotted, Chris. I had a look myself but couldn't find anything
(because I was searching for "Jewishness"). Fred may not have the
wording quite right, but he has captured the sense perfectly, so it
seems that Mark owes him an apology.
P.S. "Flaunt" is a curious word to use. Reminds me of those people who
say that they don't mind gays, so long as they don't "flaunt it".
P.P.S. I hadn't realised you'd been made President, Fred. Hail to the
Chief!
Mark N
> P.P.S. I hadn't realised you'd been made President, Fred. Hail to the
> Chief!
Mark
David Friedman
Reggie Perrin <reggie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chris Cathcart wrote:
> > Mark wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Fred Weiss, president of Paper Tiger, writes:
> > > "Ayn Rand herself is ok because in Mork's own words
> > > 'she didn't flaunt her Jewishness'."
> > >
> > > There are no such words. This is a bare-faced lie.
> > >
> > > The question is, why did Mr. Weiss utter such a lie when -- if he
> > > thinks rationally at all -- he knows he'll be called on it?
> >
> >Chris:
> > A search of "rand flaunt" turned up:
> >
> > Mark:
> > One thing she didn't do is flaunt it. You can read Ayn Rand 'till
> > you're blue in the face without finding out she was Jewish. It wasn't
> > important to her.
>
> Well spotted, Chris. I had a look myself but couldn't find anything
> (because I was searching for "Jewishness"). Fred may not have the
> wording quite right, but he has captured the sense perfectly, so it
> seems that Mark owes him an apology.
Yes and no. Fred did indeed make an untrue statement--"in Mork's own
words," followed by quotation marks, means that he is quoting Mork, not
paraphrasing him--and he isn't. But "bare-faced lie" is pretty strong,
given that it was a paraphrase.
--
Remove NOPSAM to email
www.daviddfriedman.com
John Alway
David Friedman wrote:
[...]
> Yes and no. Fred did indeed make an untrue statement--"in Mork's own
> words," followed by quotation marks, means that he is quoting Mork, not
> paraphrasing him--and he isn't. But "bare-faced lie" is pretty strong,
> given that it was a paraphrase.
You mean he said it, but not in those exact words?
Egad, this is where the fine art of sophistry makes its appearance.
However, to get to the heart of the matter, I seriously doubt Mark is
an anti-semite. He just has lots of mistaken views.
...John
MW
Hitler wiping out millions of Jewish people was "tragic but necessary".
If Mark did say such a thing, I think that would prove Fred's
hysterical accusation and indeed prove that if Mark were to say such a
thing that he was an anti-semitic bigot.
Just like Fred is about Aboriginals of North America.
Reggie Perrin
> David Friedman wrote:
> > [...]
> > Fred did indeed make an untrue statement--"in Mork's own
> > words," followed by quotation marks, means that he is quoting Mork, not
> > paraphrasing him--and he isn't. But "bare-faced lie" is pretty strong,
> > given that it was a paraphrase.
>
> You mean he said it, but not in those exact words?
>
> Egad, this is where the fine art of sophistry makes its appearance.
Indeed. If we're going to be that pernickety about it, it's worth
noting that Fred referred to Mork, not Mark, so presumably someone is
going to have to check Robin Williams' old lines in order to settle the
matter.
> However, to get to the heart of the matter, I seriously doubt Mark is
> an anti-semite. He just has lots of mistaken views.
Sadly, I'm not sure I share your good faith. Having noticed both the
frequency with which he mentions Israel in posts, and his readiness to
reel off a list of names of anti-Israel figures in support of his case,
I suspect an unhealthy fixation.
fred...@papertig.com
>
> Well spotted, Chris. I had a look myself but couldn't find anything
> (because I was searching for "Jewishness"). Fred may not have the
> wording quite right, but he has captured the sense perfectly, so it
> seems that Mark owes him an apology.
Yes, as David Friedman says perhaps I should have mentioned that I was
paraphrasing but as you note I captured the sense of what he said and I
knew that because I rememberd him saying it.
> P.S. "Flaunt" is a curious word to use. Reminds me of those people who
> say that they don't mind gays, so long as they don't "flaunt it".
Exactly - and anyone who has been the subject of similar prejudice will
tell you the same thing.
> P.P.S. I hadn't realised you'd been made President, Fred. Hail to the
> Chief!
I was made president the day I started the company. That's the nice
thing about being boss (and at the time only employee). :-)
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
> However, to get to the heart of the matter, I seriously doubt Mark is
> an anti-semite.
Oh, he certainly is. He masks it most of the time by focusing on Israel
but it is clearly to an obsessive degree and in the context in which he
brings it up it is often jarringly gratuitous. Then there his frequent
mention of certain "authors" - such as Norman Finkelstein - who are
notorious for their viciously anti-Israel views, authors who are
frequently cited on Islamist and Nazi and other Jew and Israel hating
websites.
Fred Weiss
fred...@papertig.com
> John Alway wrote:
> > However, to get to the heart of the matter, I seriously doubt Mark is
> > an anti-semite. He just has lots of mistaken views.
>
> Sadly, I'm not sure I share your good faith. Having noticed both the
> frequency with which he mentions Israel in posts, and his readiness to
> reel off a list of names of anti-Israel figures in support of his case,
> I suspect an unhealthy fixation.
Confirming my sense of it as well. I wrote my post addrssing this very
point before reading what you wrote here.
Fred Weiss
John Alway
> John Alway wrote:
> > David Friedman wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Fred did indeed make an untrue statement--"in Mork's own
> > > words," followed by quotation marks, means that he is quoting Mork, not
> > > paraphrasing him--and he isn't. But "bare-faced lie" is pretty strong,
> > > given that it was a paraphrase.
> > You mean he said it, but not in those exact words?
> > Egad, this is where the fine art of sophistry makes its appearance.
> Indeed. If we're going to be that pernickety about it, it's worth
> noting that Fred referred to Mork, not Mark, so presumably someone is
> going to have to check Robin Williams' old lines in order to settle the
> matter.
Shellsbutts! I would have preferred a character from Get Smart,
because that was a funnier show.
> > However, to get to the heart of the matter, I seriously doubt Mark is
> > an anti-semite. He just has lots of mistaken views.
> Sadly, I'm not sure I share your good faith. Having noticed both the
> frequency with which he mentions Israel in posts, and his readiness to
> reel off a list of names of anti-Israel figures in support of his case,
> I suspect an unhealthy fixation.
I've admittedly only read a small fraction of his postings, so you
are probably a better judge of this than am I.
...John
for
the
bot
John Alway
Well, if this is the case, he's an idiot.
I was hoping he was just anti-samite or something.
...John
bot
food
Mark
quoted was in response to Robert J. Kolker and part of a systematic
attempt to make an issue of Ayn Rand being Jewish so as to somehow (I
don't follow the logic) make Israel an Objectivist icon. Here is
Robert Kolker's post that preceded mine:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_frm
/thread/d2643dbfa4b7c8c3/a44a26ca1a2a1290?q=rand+flaunt&rnum=5#a44a26ca1a2a1290
Subject: Re: Dr Yaron Brook on the War on Terror
[quotes Jim Klein]
Do you see Jews crashing civillian airliners into tall buildings?
The
choices are not the same. Monotheism did not turn Jews into enemies
of
manking, as it did in the case of Islam. Judaism became detoxified
over
the millenia. The main content of the religion is not longer blood
sacrifices of cattle on flaming altars, but ethical matters.
It is no coincidence that Objectivism (the movement) was founded by
Jews, albieit non observant Jews.
My response is: Ayn Rand being a Jew is irrelevant to us, and I'm sure
it was irrelevant to Ayn Rand herself. Here see my post that Chris
quotes at "Dr Yaron Brook on the War on Terror":
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_frm
/thread/d2643dbfa4b7c8c3/a44a26ca1a2a1290?q=rand+flaunt&rnum=5#a44a26ca1a2a
1290.
Now here's what Mr. Weiss wrote today:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_frm
/thread/dba0a23966222e91/7a14a703d576a72d?q=weiss+anti&rnum=3#7a14a703d576a72d
Subject: Re: The Wog begins at Callaise.
...
"outright anti-semites like Mork the Dork."
My response was, and still is:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_frm
/thread/dba0a23966222e91/7a14a703d576a72d?q=so+is+norman+finkelstein&rnum=1
#7a14a703d576a72d
Mr. Weiss refers to
"outright anti-semites like Mork the Dork."
"Mork the Dork" being Mr. Weiss's endlessly clever pseudonym for
yours
truly.
He's right, in a way. If an anti-semite is one who criticizes some
aspects of Israel, then I _am_ an anti-semite. So is Norman
Finkelstein. [ http://normanfinkelstein.com ] Good on us!
Later Mr. Weiss wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/browse_frm
/thread/dba0a23966222e91/88b15b0c8f5b1a5f?q=finkelstein&rnum=1#88b15b0c8f5b1a5f
Subject: Re: The Wog begins at Callaise.
...
Incidentally, is the fog starting to lift as to the *real reason*
for
Mork's obsession with ARI? Mind you, Ayn Rand herself is ok because
in
Mork's own words "she didn't flaunt her Jewishness". Uh, huh.
Now think about that. Mr. Weiss says I think Ayn Rand is ok "BECAUSE"
she didn't flaunt her Jewishness.
I said NOTHING like that.
Fred Weiss is a bare-faced liar.
And "anti-semite" is the tarbaby of Usenet!
Mark
Matt Barrow
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:1131331693.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Reggie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> P.P.S. I hadn't realised you'd been made President, Fred. Hail to the
>> Chief!
>
> I was made president the day I started the company. That's the nice
> thing about being boss (and at the time only employee). :-)
>
Nice, ain't it...work whenever your want... :~)
--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
President, chief bottlewasher, go'fer
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO
Mark
Reggie Perrin, Mark N, ...) will likely smear again, here's my last
post tidied up and with direct URLs, for future reference.
Robert Kolker tried to make an issue of Ayn Rand being Jewish at
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/tree/brows
e_frm/thread/d2643dbfa4b7c8c3/d41e8d2841cd48ce?rnum=131&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhu
manities.philosophy.objectivism%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fd2643dbfa4b7c8c3%2F
f4c2aead1e943903%3F#doc_ea8f7fe7e8609d08
Subject: Dr Yaron Brook on the War on Terror
It is no coincidence that Objectivism (the movement)
was founded by Jews, albieit non observant Jews.
This sounds like tribalism. Ayn Rand's Jewishness was irrelevant to
her. Here was my reply:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/tree/brows
e_frm/thread/d2643dbfa4b7c8c3/d41e8d2841cd48ce?rnum=131&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhu
manities.philosophy.objectivism%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fd2643dbfa4b7c8c3%2F
f4c2aead1e943903%3F#doc_a44a26ca1a2a1290
One thing she didn't do is flaunt it [as Kolker does].
You can read Ayn Rand 'till you're blue in the face
without finding out she was Jewish. It wasn't important
to her.
Nor was Israel. Only once does she mention Israel
in her writing, and then -- as I have stated -- her opinion
was based on limited knowledge.
Now here is what Mr. Weiss broadcast Sunday:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/tree/brows
e_frm/thread/dba0a23966222e91/ecb12eee90e56a05?rnum=1&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhuma
nities.philosophy.objectivism%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fdba0a23966222e91%2F90
92ede739cf1e25%3F#doc_bc7793d2a58d3d94
Subject: The Wog begins at Callaise.
...
"outright anti-semites like Mork the Dork."
My response:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/tree/brows
e_frm/thread/dba0a23966222e91/fd40d7d0c65ae27c?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhum
anities.philosophy.objectivism%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fdba0a23966222e91%2F9
092ede739cf1e25%3F#doc_cc8de9b582ebdb83
Mr. Weiss refers to
"outright anti-semites like Mork the Dork."
"Mork the Dork" being Mr. Weiss's endlessly clever
pseudonym for yours truly.
He's right, in a way. If an anti-semite is one who
criticizes some aspects of Israel, then I _am_ an
anti-semite. So is Norman Finkelstein.
[ http://normanfinkelstein.com ] Good on us!
In reply to this Mr. Weiss wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/tree/brows
e_frm/thread/dba0a23966222e91/fd40d7d0c65ae27c?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhum
anities.philosophy.objectivism%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fdba0a23966222e91%2F9
092ede739cf1e25%3F#doc_7a14a703d576a72d
...
... is the fog starting to lift as to the *real reason*
for Mork's obsession with ARI? Mind you, Ayn
Rand herself is ok because in Mork's own words
"she didn't flaunt her Jewishness". Uh, huh.
Now think about that. Mr. Weiss says I think Ayn Rand is ok BECAUSE
she didn't flaunt her Jewishness.
I said nothing like that.
atlasbugged
news:1131381185.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Since Mr. Weiss (and David Friedman, Atlas Bugged, Chris Cathcart,
> Reggie Perrin, Mark N, ...) will likely smear again, here's my last
> post tidied up and with direct URLs, for future reference.
The post is a mess. Do you not know how to use link-shorteners? No one can
use any of the links you've posted. Now, I'm not saying you suck *just*
because your post is a pile of garbled characters. You are right, however,
I *am* going to smear you some more, but then, it's not a smear if it's
true, is it? Stay tuned, we'll have more fun.
Don't Panic
John Alway wrote:
> fred...@papertig.com wrote:
> > John Alway wrote:
>
> > > However, to get to the heart of the matter, I seriously doubt Mark is
> > > an anti-semite.
>
> > Oh, he certainly is. He masks it most of the time by focusing on Israel
> > but it is clearly to an obsessive degree and in the context in which he
> > brings it up it is often jarringly gratuitous. Then there his frequent
> > mention of certain "authors" - such as Norman Finkelstein - who are
> > notorious for their viciously anti-Israel views, authors who are
> > frequently cited on Islamist and Nazi and other Jew and Israel hating
> > websites.
>
>
> Well, if this is the case, he's an idiot.
Jesus Christ, can you at least fake thinking for yourself? Fred, like
most of the ARI jerkoffs in HPO, isn't even aware of what Mark was
accusing Fred of being a liar about. It's one thing to say that "Mark
said Ayn Rand didn't flaunt her jewishness" to saying "Mark said Rand's
jewishness is okay because she didn't flaunt it."
The sycophancy is unmistakeable.
Reggie Perrin
Don't Panic wrote:
> [...]
> Fred, like most of the ARI jerkoffs in HPO, isn't even aware of
> what Mark was accusing Fred of being a liar about. It's one
> thing to say that "Mark said Ayn Rand didn't flaunt her jewishness"
> to saying "Mark said Rand's jewishness is okay because she
> didn't flaunt it."
You should read more carefully. Here's the relevant section of Fred's
post:
'Incidentally, is the fog starting to lift as to the *real reason* for
Mork's obsession with ARI? Mind you, Ayn Rand herself is ok because in
Mork's own words "she didn't flaunt her Jewishness". Uh, huh.'
In this passage, Fred is analysing what he perceives to be Mark's
hidden motives. This is established in the first sentence by the phrase
"real reason" and the mood continues into the second sentence. It is
plain to me that all of the passage up to "because" is Fred's
interpretation, and intended to be understood as such. This is
reinforced by the placement of the phrase "in Mork's own words", since
if Fred had meant what *you* take him to have meant, he would surely
have written "Mind you, in Mork's own words Ayn Rand ..." etc.
As I said before, the only error Fred made was a minor one - he failed
to reproduce Mark's words correctly, but captured the sense of the
remark perfectly.
Mark
Actually, all the links in
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/tree/brows
e_frm/thread/44d41e5d9a395541/ba461febd2ad1de7?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhum
anities.philosophy.objectivism%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F44d41e5d9a395541%2F0
9fb672b8794da35%3F#doc_0df4c7ef51c20487
work fine.
But suppose they didn't. That would hardly be a cause for moral
condemnation -- unless Atlas were groping for it.
A smear, of course, is a lie.
Atlas Bugged is a smear-artist. For example, Atlas Bugged in another
thread ended this post
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/tree/brows
e_frm/thread/ec7487e922326c09/c815984dcaa9cbd3?rnum=31&q=%22up+to.%22&_done
=%2Fgroup%2Fhumanities.philosophy.objectivism%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2Fec748
=7e922326c09%2Fc3b3296e0ca99ecc%3Fq%3D%22up+to.%22%26rnum%3D4%26#doc_565988
=f723c646f6
with:
"... even a casual observer can see what you're up to."
Now don't be coy Atlas Bugged. Come right out and tell us what you
think I'm up to, and why.
Mark
Mark
"It is plain to me that all of the passage up to
'because' is Fred's interpretation, and intended
to be understood as such."
Of course it's Fred Weiss's "interpretation" -- of what isn't clear.
Whose interpretation _would_ it be? And of course Fred Weiss is
advocating his own -- neurotic, slanderous, and false --
interpretation.
Mr. Weiss starts by assuming I have "hidden motives" then "interprets"
his own sick mind.
Reggie presents this as a defense of Mr. Weiss?
This link to my main post here doesn't display well, but it works:
http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.philosophy.objectivism/tree/brows
e_frm/thread/44d41e5d9a395541/a272c97a87f01d08?rnum=11&_done=%2Fgroup%2Fhum
anities.philosophy.objectivism%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F44d41e5d9a395541%3Fs
coring%3Dd%26&scoring=d#doc_0df4c7ef51c20487
Mark
Reggie Perrin
Mark wrote:
> Reggie Perrin writes:
>
> "It is plain to me that all of the passage up to
> 'because' is Fred's interpretation, and intended
> to be understood as such."
>
Good, I'm glad you agree. Cat Toy, are you watching? Does this clear
things up for you?
> [...]
> Reggie presents this as a defense of Mr. Weiss?
No, I already did that. In the post you are referring to, I was helping
Cat Toy to understand why he is wrong. I consider this my good deed for
the day.
Perhaps you should clarify what it is you think Fred is lying about. In
your first post you said, in reference to Fred's post, that "there are
no such words", by which I presume you mean that he misquoted you.
Well, technically you're right, but since the difference doesn't amount
to a heap of beans, I actually think it's rather disingenuous of *you*
to represent this as a lie.
Mark
sentiment_.
I try to avoid epithets, but I shall now allow myself to lose my
temper.
"Reggie Perrin" -- you are an idiot.
Mark
Mark
doubt[s] Mark is an anti-semite":
"Oh, he certainly is. He masks it most of the time
by focusing on Israel ..."
Now how does Mr. Weiss know this?
Criticize Israel in any way and get called an anti-semite.
If my criticism of Israel be anti-semitic, make the most of it --
paraphrasing Patrick Henry's reply to being accused a traitor.
Mr. Weiss continues -- and I gather by "it" he means my concern with
ARI's obsession with Israel:
"... it is clearly to an obsessive degree and in the
context in which he brings it up it is often jarringly
gratuitous."
ARI brings up Israel again and again. Do a site search for Israel on
ARI's web site aynrand.org and you come up with 673 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=israel+site%3Awww.aynrand.org
And _I'm_ obsessed? As the hound twists and turns so must the hare.
I'll have to address ARI's treatment of Israel at length on my website.
Then Mr. Weiss really goes off the deep end. My admiration for Norman
Finkelstein is, he claims, yet more evidence that I'm an anti-semite:
"Then there his frequent mention of certain
'authors' [evidently they are not REAL authors! --
Mark] -- such as Norman Finkelstein -- who
are notorious for their viciously anti-Israel
views ..."
I interrupt. "vicioulsy anti-Israel" begs the question of Israel's
virtue. Prof. Finkelstein criticizes some aspects of Israel, as I do.
I trust Mr. Weiss's realizes that one can criticize Israel from either
a bad motive or a good motive. The latter can exist. Israel is not
above criticism. Israel is not automatically good. Unless you worship
Israel.
Why does Mr. Weiss say that Prof. Finkelstein's motive is a bad one? I
find Prof. Finkelstein a thoroughly decent man, a man who values the
truth.
Mr. Weiss continues smearing Prof. Finkelstein:
", authors who are frequently cited on Islamist
and Nazi and other Jew and Israel hating websites."
So, if a nutcase website links to you, you simply must be a nutcase
yourself.
Mr. Weiss's argument is just plain stupid. And Mr. Weiss is even
stupider if he thinks he can get away with it.
Mark
John Alway
Get real. I noted the post that started this thread, and noted that
Mark did say what Fred claimed, although not in those precise words.
As to the anti-semitism, I've not concluded that Mark is an
anti-semite. I only acknolwedged that if Fred is right, then Mark is
an idiot. Anti-semitism is pure stupidity.
Since I don't know for sure, I'll just make it clear that I don't
think Mark is an anti-semite. I've simply not read enough of his
postings. I will say that Mark is a rationalist, whose ideas are not
connected to reality. He argues very badly and this keeps me from
reading his posts as a rule, so I'm not likely to research this entire
issue. There are more important things in the world than that.
...John
Mark
Mark
John Alway
Mark wrote:
> Get real yourself, Mr. Alway. You're no better than "Reggie Perrin."
Thanks for the compliment.
...John
Mark N
> Since Mr. Weiss (and David Friedman, Atlas Bugged, Chris Cathcart,
> Reggie Perrin, Mark N, ...) will likely smear again, here's my last
> post tidied up and with direct URLs, for future reference.
How exactly did *I* get on that list? I know little about you, I've read
very few of your posts, and I certainly have no interest in "smearing" you.
Mark
Mark
entirely.
Mark
Mark N
> Scratch Mark N from the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists. My mistake
> entirely.
OK. No problem.
Mark
Chris Cathcart
And I guess my smear consisted in posting the entirety of the text
(with headers, no less) of a post from Mark himself.
n
n
n
n
nn
Mark
as supporting Mr. Weiss, especially since you remained silent as Mr.
Weiss, Atlas Bugged, and Reggie Perrin took your post precisely that
way -- and you said nothing to contradict them.
And frankly, at the time I was a bit upset at the craziness of these
people, the injustice of their attack, the viciousness of it, and
consequently not in the kindliest of moods.
Perhaps including you in the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists was
premature. You might elaborate regarding Mr. Weiss in order to make
your position clear. I gather -- now -- that you haven't hitched
yourself to his wagon like Atlas Bugged, etc. have.
As 'Don't Panic' observed (I'm fleshing it out a bit): It's one
thing to say "Ayn Rand didn't flaunt her jewishness" in the context
of replying to someone here who WAS flaunting it, and quite another to
say "Rand's jewishness is okay because she didn't flaunt it." (!)
That last is what Mr. Weiss claimed I said. What a sick smear.
Mark
Malrassic Park
<atlasbug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>"Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote in message
>news:1131381185.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Since Mr. Weiss (and David Friedman, Atlas Bugged, Chris Cathcart,
>> Reggie Perrin, Mark N, ...) will likely smear again, here's my last
>> post tidied up and with direct URLs, for future reference.
>The post is a mess.
You are correct for once.
Don't Panic
John Alway wrote:
>
> As to the anti-semitism, I've not concluded that Mark is an
> anti-semite. I only acknolwedged that if Fred is right, then Mark is
> an idiot. Anti-semitism is pure stupidity.
What kind of objectivist are you? Of course it's "pure stupidity" -
why does Fred's neurotic conclusion bear repeating, unless you agree,
or are throwing him a bone? And why does another post ooze "I've
admittedly only read a small fraction of his postings, so you are
probably a better judge of this than am I."? It's obvious you're
already biased toward Fred's conclusion.
Chris Cathcart
Mark wrote:
> Chris Cathcart -- At the time it was hard for me not to see your post
> as supporting Mr. Weiss, especially since you remained silent as Mr.
> Weiss, Atlas Bugged, and Reggie Perrin took your post precisely that
> way -- and you said nothing to contradict them.
> As 'Don't Panic' observed (I'm fleshing it out a bit): It's one
> thing to say "Ayn Rand didn't flaunt her jewishness" in the context
> of replying to someone here who WAS flaunting it, and quite another to
> say "Rand's jewishness is okay because she didn't flaunt it." (!)
>
> That last is what Mr. Weiss claimed I said. What a sick smear.
I thought my posting of your words had pretty much brought forth the
facts as they were, and so couldn't be said to be some kind of partisan
support for one side of the discussion or other. Best as I could tell,
the facts brought forth indicated that (a) the reference to Rand not
flaunting her Jewishness wasn't some kind of fantasy or lie out of left
field, and (b) in your own words as quoted, there wasn't a specific,
explicit reference to its being "okay" that Rand didn't flaunt it,
though Mr. Weiss didn't specifically include the "okay" part in what he
directly attributed to you.
On the whole, the quoting of that post seems to be quite a balanced
part of assessing the competing claims you and Mr. Weiss made. The
"okay" part is an interpretation which you can contest if you please,
but the "she didn't flaunt her Jewishness" part seems to accurately
capture the gist of your own words. If that amounts to "support" for
Mr. Weiss, I plead guilty for posting the facts.
Atlas Bugged
> Scratch Mark N from the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists. My mistake
> entirely.
Fool! Mark N. is the most sinister ;-), the most devious /:->, the most
dastardly of them all :-)))!!!
Chris Cathcart
BTW, the reason I bothered even to quote your post about Rand not
flaunting it, was that I happened to be intrigued by the claims you
(Mark) and Mr. Weiss had made, respectively, which sent me Googling.
Was it a boldfaced lie made up by Mr. Weiss, or did his claim have a
basis in reality? You made a strong charge, which for some reason
seemed worth checking out. After all, where would this reference to
"flaunting Jewishness" come from, perchance? Something about Rand and
her relation to her (non-flaunted) Jewish heritage is strangely
intriguing, hence my interest. That, and the extremity of the charge.
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Mark
It's one thing to say "Ayn Rand didn't flaunt her jewishness"
in the context of replying to someone here who WAS flaunting
it, and quite another to say "Rand's jewishness is okay
because she didn't flaunt it."
That last is what Mr. Weiss claimed I said. What a sick
smear.
Chris Cathcart writes regarding Fred Weiss's claim:
"... the reference to Rand not flaunting her Jewishness
wasn't some kind of fantasy or lie [of Mr. Weiss's] out
of left field ..."
Chris Cathcart is back in the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists.
Added is Malrassic Park.
Mark
Malrassic Park
>Added is Malrassic Park.
>
>Mark
Whatever, I support you against my fellow smear-artists anyway. Not
that I care much what happens on usenet.
Malrassic Park
>Added is Malrassic Park.
>
I see your reasoning now. It really was a messed up post you wrote.
You should use a url shortener. I highly recommend snurl.com.
Mark
is, contrary to Atlas Bugged. And, Malrassic Park, recall that after
Atlas Bugged objected to my long URLs he went on to mix up that
objection with condemning the _content_ of my post. You shouldn't have
agreed with him. You can compose your own "Hey, sloppy looking text,
use snurl" without quoting a dimwit like Atlas Bugged.
Mark
fred...@papertig.com
> Chris Cathcart is back in the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists.
>
> Added is Malrassic Park.
Let's have a contest to see who can get on and off Mork's list the most
times in the next 24 hours.
Fred Weiss
Chris Cathcart
Yet you don't explain why.
Look, go back and look at the claims each person made, and exactly what
things were attributed to whom. It isn't too difficult to follow.
Mr. Weiss makes the following claim, describing what he thinks is your
position, and attributing something directly to you:
"Rand is okay, because IN MORK THE DORK'S OWN WORDS, 'She didn't flaunt
her Jewishness.'"
He didn't make the claim, "IN MORK THE DORK'S OWN WORDS, 'Rand is okay
because she didn't flaunt her Jewishness.'"
You obviously never said the latter, but that wasn't the claim Mr.
Weiss was making. He claimed the former. You said that he lied when
he said that. Your implication being that there were never words of
yours that said that. Which would mean that the thing about you
sayinig something about Rand's not flaunting her Jewishness was some
fantasy that came totally out of left field in order to smear or lie
about you.
Except that you did say words precisely to that effect. You didn't say
that Rand was okay because of not flaunting your Jewishness, but Mr.
Weiss didn't attribute that to you.
The best that you could do is charge Mr. Weiss with not quoting you
directly, in exactly the string of words that you used, even though he
got the gist of it precisely correct. You can contest Mr. Weiss's
INTERPRETATION of your words, consisting in "Rand was okay because
[your words]," and you can argue all day long about whether he's a good
interpreter of your words, but his interpretation hasn't made him a
boldfaced liar.
So where is the boldfaced lie for which you charged Mr. Weiss?
If all this factual line of reasoning and questioning makes me a smear
artist, then I plead guilty.
Chris Cathcart
Chris Cathcart wrote:
> Mr. Weiss makes the following claim, describing what he thinks is your
> position, and attributing something directly to you:
>
> "Rand is okay, because IN MORK THE DORK'S OWN WORDS, 'She didn't flaunt
> her Jewishness.'"
Actually, I plead guilty to smearing Mr. Weiss here, as the "Dork" part
wasn't in his original phrasing under discussion. Obviously that's a
boldfaced lie on my part, attributing things to him he clearly never
said.
Mark
thugs. They are punching him. Now his tie is askew. One of the
thugs, as he pulls his arm back for another blow, jeers:
"You're tie is askew."
Another man walks by and observes:
"That's right. You're tie is askew."
And WALKS ON BY.
Such a man is Chris Cathcart.
Maybe Mr. Cathcart does belong in the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists
after all.
It's one thing to say "Ayn Rand didn't flaunt her jewishness"
in the context of replying to someone here who WAS flaunting
it, and quite another to say "Rand's jewishness is okay
because she didn't flaunt it."
That last is what Mr. Weiss claimed I said.
Fred Wise of Paper Tiger is a bare-faced liar.
Mark
Mark
Atlas Bugged
>I may give snurl a try next time, thanks. But these URLs do work as
> is, contrary to Atlas Bugged.
It's a failing of most newsreaders. The fact was that nearly no one could
use your URL's, not to mention the mess they made of your post's appearance.
>And, Malrassic Park, recall that after
> Atlas Bugged objected to my long URLs he went on to mix up that
> objection with condemning the _content_ of my post.
You caught that, did you? Yes, you appear to be Full Of Shit(tm).
I notice you dodged my question about *why* you are fixated on ARI, and in a
seemingly clinical sort of way.
This is your opportunity to slink away with that "hurt" look because you
feel insulted and dodge it again.
>You shouldn't have
> quoted him. You can compose your own "Hey, sloppy looking text, use
> snurl" without quoting a dimwit like Atlas Bugged.
Snipping my comments from a response doesn't make the questions I ask go
poof and disappear. Nor does repeating them make you look any worse.
Instead of worrying about "repeated quotations," why don't you try
explaining yourself?
>
> I can't believe he's a lawyer.
>
> Then again, I can.
And a Jew! Watch out! Comin' to gitch ya!
I have a new online bio so you can find out more about me. Just a light
background piece from a FIREFLY fan site.
http://shorl.com/gunapibrokety
Chris Cathcart
Mark wrote:
> Suppose a man, call him X, walking on the sidewalk gets set upon by
> thugs. They are punching him. Now his tie is askew. One of the
> thugs, as he pulls his arm back for another blow, jeers:
>
> "You're tie is askew."
>
> Another man walks by and observes:
>
> "That's right. You're tie is askew."
>
> And WALKS ON BY.
>
> Such a man is Chris Cathcart.
Oh silly me. I should have seen the analogy. Wait, oh wait --
analogy? No, the real thing. A bunch of big bad bullies on HPO have
literally physically ganged up on poor Mark and I did nothing to help.
This newsgroup is so mean and brutal, and poor Mark can hardly defend
himself.
(Here I was, thinking that it was more like a verbal exchange typical
of Usenet, with accusations and insults flying back and forth. But no,
some real physical beating has been going on, one guy getting pounded
on without recourse.)
What's so funny about all this is that I'm not particularly a fan of
the ARI myself, perhaps making me one of those most inclined in this
newsgroup to lend an ear to attacks against ARI, were my interest in
ARIWatch's issues heightened enough to pay close attention. The *tone*
and demeanor of Mark's posts here, however, don't help much to advance
my interest in what he might have to say.
> It's one thing to say "Ayn Rand didn't flaunt her jewishness"
> in the context of replying to someone here who WAS flaunting
> it, and quite another to say "Rand's jewishness is okay
> because she didn't flaunt it."
>
> That last is what Mr. Weiss claimed I said.
No, it is not. C'mon, you have some credibility issues here. If this
is any indication of your attitude in attributing positions to ARI,
count me amongst the uninterested about your ARIWatch. It's not any
mystery at all what Mr. Weiss claimed, and it's not the above. Just go
compare the above with what he actually said, which is right in the
very first post of this thread.
It's no secret that Mr. Weiss thinks you're anti-semitic based on
things you say. One could question the relationship between what you
say, and his inferences he makes from them. I've never really looked
into the matter to see if you're actually anti-semitic. I haven't
seen, however, his having been mistaken about what you specifically
said. The posting of yours that I quoted in full makes rather quite
clear that you had said what he specifically attributed to you. Look
at me, I'm repeating myself.
So far, you've made a big issue out of something that isn't there.
Fred said that you said that Rand didn't flaunt her Jewishness, and lo
and behold, you said that Rand didn't flaunt her Jewishness. That
pretty much ends this argument, as there's nothing more to discuss
here. The "Rand is ok" part is something for a different discussion,
having to do with some alleged anti-semitism in your views. What
you've said, however, has already been established, and in that regard,
Mr. Weiss hasn't been shown to be a liar.
Mark
... my question about *why* you are fixated on ARI,
and in a seemingly clinical sort of way ...
...
And a Jew! Watch out! Comin' to gitch ya!
Mr. Bugged, such a witty fellow. Now after telling us he's a Jew,
perhaps he will explain the point of doing so.
But of course one can guess. The tarbaby technique in action.
ANYTHING one says in reply Mr. Bugged will charge is anti-semitic.
I don't think "fixated" describes my attitude toward ARI. I am
concerned about the harm ARI is doing to things I value highly.
Mark
Robert J. Kolker
> I have a new online bio so you can find out more about me. Just a light
> background piece from a FIREFLY fan site.
> http://shorl.com/gunapibrokety
Your comments about sub light speed travel are incorrect. If one can
have a vehicle moving arbitrarily close to light speed the elapsed time
in the vehicle can be made arbitrarily small. If one were able to travel
at light speed (not possible) no time would elapse in the vehicle.
Consult any text on special theory of relativity and look up
relativistic time dilation in the index.
I see that you are a New Jersey-ite. Send me some private e-mail if you
will and let me know from whereabouts in the state you are. I live over
in Geezer-City (aka Rossmore) in Monroe Twp.
Bob Kolker
Don't Panic
Mark wrote:
> That all you have to say Mr. Weiss?
His name is "Fraud". Usually, I refrain from using nicknames in the
fashion of a playground bully, but I'm confident that everyone here
will see that my use of such epithets is justified because "Fraud" is
so irrational.
I also plan on substituting any kind of argument with these epithets,
because I don't have to explain my position to an irrational person
such as "Fraud". I owe him nothing except my rationally held contempt.
I'm sure that by repeatedly calling him "Fraud," I won't look like a
complete and utter fist fuck to anyone who might be interested in
objectivism as a rational philosophy.
Mark
"It's no secret that Mr. Weiss thinks you're anti-semitic
based on things you say."
No, Mr. Weiss attempts to forestall any and all criticism of Israel by
smearing. His thoughts are based on the neurotic content of his mind.
"... you've made a big issue out of something that
isn't there."
And CC goes on to say Mr. Weiss was correct, while
misrepresenting what he said.
Again, paraphasing 'Don't Panic':
It's one thing to say "Ayn Rand didn't flaunt her jewishness"
in the context of replying to someone here who WAS flaunting
it, and quite another to say "Rand's jewishness is okay
because she didn't flaunt it."
That last is what Mr. Weiss claimed I said, and he is a bare-faced
liar.
Mark
Reggie Perrin
Mark wrote:
> [...]
> "You're tie is askew."
You're grammar could use some work.
atlasbugged
> ... my question about *why* you are fixated on ARI,
> and in a seemingly clinical sort of way ...
> ...
> And a Jew! Watch out! Comin' to gitch ya!
"Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote in message
news:1131460788....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Bugged, such a witty fellow. Now after telling us he's a Jew,
> perhaps he will explain the point of doing so.
Reckoned it would scare the FUCK out of you.
> But of course one can guess. The tarbaby technique in action.
> ANYTHING one says in reply Mr. Bugged will charge is anti-semitic.
That's because you're an anti-semite.
>
> I don't think "fixated" describes my attitude toward ARI. I am
> concerned about the harm ARI is doing to things I value highly.
What can I say? I simply don't believe you. People on intellectual
crusades like yours are lying to themselves. Your thesis, even assuming you
believe it, rates maybe a single web page, then a post, max. Why don't you
go after scientologists or someone - anyone - that could really *use* going
after?
Your anger and activity vis-a-vis ARI is way out of proportion to anything
reasonable, and your activity level suggests you don't have anything more
substantial to worry about.
Quite frankly, I don't know if you are anti-semitic or not, but I do know
that there is no "two sides" to the Israel/Arab story. Anyone who portrays
it that way is either dumb as rocks or hates the Jews. If you know of a
third alternative, or want to fess up to being a rock, I'm listening.
atlasbugged
>
>> I have a new online bio so you can find out more about me. Just a light
>> background piece from a FIREFLY fan site.
>> http://shorl.com/gunapibrokety
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dkqeqd$pc0$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> Your comments about sub light speed travel are incorrect. If one can have
> a vehicle moving arbitrarily close to light speed the elapsed time in the
> vehicle can be made arbitrarily small. If one were able to travel at light
> speed (not possible) no time would elapse in the vehicle.
>
> Consult any text on special theory of relativity and look up relativistic
> time dilation in the index.
You know that it's a Wiki, right? You can change anything on the page to
your liking just by hitting the "edit page" button, upper right? If you'd
rather not, I'll correct it, but I'm not clear on exactly which phrase
you're referring to.
>
> I see that you are a New Jersey-ite. Send me some private e-mail if you
> will and let me know from whereabouts in the state you are. I live over in
> Geezer-City (aka Rossmore) in Monroe Twp.
I'm down at the Jersey Shore. I'll e-mail you with specifics when I get off
work later.
Reggie Perrin
atlasbugged wrote:
> > [...]
> > Bob Kolker:
> > Your comments about sub light speed travel are incorrect.
> Bugged:
> [...]
> I'm not clear on exactly which phrase you're referring to.
I'm guessing it's the part where you say, "If [the theory of
relativity] is true, the distances between bodies in space are such
that travel between and among stars will always exceed any human's
lifetime, usually by many orders of magnitude."
Alpha Proximi, the second nearest star after the Sun, is only(!) 4.3
light years away. So even neglecting the time dilation effect, you can
see that the average human lifespan would be no bar to interstellar
travel. Bob's point was that if we had a spaceship capable of
travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, time would
slow down for the passengers such that their lifespans, from our
perspective, would be considerably extended.
MW
question. It's a long one.
I think there is more than a "paraphrasing" going on, if you read the
entire thread in question.
Fred also smuggled in a context which didn't exist before in Mark's
actual words.
And it is on the basis of that smuggled in context, that Mark feels ( I
think) that he is being unfairly accused of something.
Mark, I want you to take a long deep breath and think about what you've
actually seen people respond to her.
You know full well that what you said, and meant by your post was NOT
what Fred Weiss is claiming he KNOWS is "revealed" by your post.
People have only at this point remarked that you did say something
similar to what Fred Weiss attributed to you.
I have yet to see anybody except for the Crackpotted Fred Weiss claim
or assert that Fred's quote IS in fact proof of "anti-semetism"
The only thing people seem to have agreed with Fred on, is that his
quote is approximate to what you said.
Except for the issue of the dropped context, and attribution of a
different context to your actual statement.
FWIW, for all of Fred Weiss's accusations about anti-semitism, I wonder
if you are aware of Fred Weiss's remarks about the treatment of
Aboriginals of North America.
I would suggest that every time Fred accuses you of being an
anti-semite on the basis that he has, you should point to the comments
he made about the anhilation of thousands of Amerindians, and the fraud
perpetrated against them as being "tragic but neseccary"
I would also suggest that people reading this completely remove the
word or concept of "Jewish" or "Jewishness" from the thread, and apply
the words or concepts of "Black or African American" or "Aboriginal" or
"Indian'ness"
How do Mark's statements hold up in that context?
.
And lastly... Mark, in all fairness to all parties, in the thread in
question, you were the first person to bring up Israel and the NeoCons.
That people who are supporters of Israel would react badly to this,
doesn't suprise me.
Frankly, you seemed to be trying to be as offensive as possible with
that statement about Israel and Neocons, and you achieved it.
Fred has seen this statement as being a big "gotcha" moment.
And I know that Fred will continue to try and use this statement as
"proof" of antisemitism on your part, for... well forever.
You will not win with him going on and on about this, in the fashion
that he's been doing.
You could, if you wanted to, perhaps call into play the strange
morality of Fred Weiss, who while acting hysterical at any possible
word, phrase or off-hand remark, being possibly considered proof of
anti-semitism....Turn it on it's head, and ask him about his opinion on
the slaughter, fraud and anhilation of Amerindians.
You might find the results amusing, instread of infuriating.
Malrassic Park
>I may give snurl a try next time, thanks. But these URLs do work as
>is, contrary to Atlas Bugged. And, Malrassic Park, recall that after
>Atlas Bugged objected to my long URLs he went on to mix up that
>objection with condemning the _content_ of my post. You shouldn't have
>quoted him. You can compose your own "Hey, sloppy looking text, use
>snurl" without quoting a dimwit like Atlas Bugged.
You are incorrect. I only quoted this much of his rant -- "The post is
a mess" -- because that's the only part I agreed with. And I'm sure
your links work, except for the fact that it is necessary to copy and
paste the last two lines of those 3-line links into the browser. This
is a weakness built into all usenet readers that I know of, including
google groups. If the entire link would show up as a link, instead of
one line of url text and the rest as plain text, nobody would have
bothered to invent the shorter link sites.
>I can't believe he's a lawyer.
>Then again, I can.
Bugged is more than a mere lawyer -- much more...
Malrassic Park
>I may give snurl a try next time, thanks. But these URLs do work as
>is, contrary to Atlas Bugged. And, Malrassic Park, recall that after
>Atlas Bugged objected to my long URLs he went on to mix up that
>objection with condemning the _content_ of my post.
Oh I see, I thought you said that I quoted more of his post. I have to
read fast these days, as I work, outside the home, 55-60 hours a week.
Reggie Perrin
Malrassic Park wrote:
> [...]
> And I'm sure your links work, except for the fact that it is
> necessary to copy and paste the last two lines of those
> 3-line links into the browser. This is a weakness built into
> all usenet readers that I know of, including google groups.
Actually, they work fine if you access them via GG - no copying and
pasting required. I was surprised by this, too.
Malrassic Park
<reggie...@gmail.com> wrote:
.
>Malrassic Park wrote:
.
Not in my browser.
Mark
>> [quoting Mr. Bugged]:
>>
>> "... my question about *why* you are fixated on
>> ARI, and in a seemingly clinical sort of way ..."
>> ...
>> "And a Jew! Watch out! Comin' to gitch ya!"
>>
>> ... such a witty fellow. Now after telling us
>> he's a Jew, perhaps he will explain the point of
>> doing so.
Mr. Bugged explains:
> Reckoned it would scare the [expletive deleted]
> out of you.
Actually it only confirms my low opinion of Mr. Bugged's intellect. I
continued:
>> But of course one can guess. The tarbaby
>> technique in action. ANYTHING one says in
>> reply, Mr. Bugged will charge is anti-semitic.
Mr. Bugged responds with the expected slur:
> That's because you're an anti-semite.
A nice round argument, round as in circular. Mr. Bugged lies as much
as Mr. Weiss. They will repeat their slur over and over, the slur from
which there is no defense because no valid proof is deemed necessary.
I wrote:
>> I don't think "fixated" describes my attitude
>> toward ARI. I am concerned about the harm
>> ARI is doing to things I value highly.
Mr. Bugged responds:
> What can I say? [Indeed -- Mark] I simply don't
> believe you. People on intellectual crusades like
> yours are lying to themselves.
This is Psychologizing and -- like all of Mr. Bugged's post -- Argument
by Intimidation. Mr. Bugged then tries to justify himself:
> Your anger and activity vis-a-vis ARI is way out
> of proportion to anything reasonable ...
Again, this begs the question. Mr. Bugged addresses nothing at
ARIwatch. He seems to think that ARIwatch must be wrong simply because
it exists. The issues it addresses (torture, constitutionality, truth,
etc.) are not important enough for a website.
Mr. Bugged ends by commenting on "the Israel/Arab story." I haven't
mentioned that conflict here, except indirectly by endorsing Norman
Finkelstein. Mr. Bugged maintains, in effect, that either you
unquestioningly support Israel in everything it does, or you are an
anti-semite:
> ... there is no "two sides" to the Israel/Arab
> story. Anyone who portrays it that way is either
> dumb as rocks or hates the Jews. If you know of
> a third alternative, or want to fess up to being
> a rock, I'm listening.
This scintillating wit is not listening at all. Or looking. Or
thinking.
In any case, the Israel/Arab conflict is not the subject here. The
subject is the honesty -- I would say dishonesty -- of Mr. Weiss.
atlasbugged
news:1131474143.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'm guessing it's the part where you say, "If [the theory of
> relativity] is true, the distances between bodies in space are such
> that travel between and among stars will always exceed any human's
> lifetime, usually by many orders of magnitude."
Yeah, I went and looked and suspected that as well. He is correct of
course. I don't argue physics with him, and he doesn't tell me which lesbo
videos are the greatest. You, too, are welcome to edit that entry, should
the notion strike you. It's the Wiki way.
>
> Alpha Proximi, the second nearest star after the Sun, is only(!) 4.3
> light years away.
Oh, joy, a walk in the park. (BTW, wouldn't even *that* trip take over 100
years with *current* rocketry?)
The thing is, as I understand it, there are very few stars, never mind star
systems, that close, and FIREFLY doesn't specify it takes place at one of
those few systems. In the entire scheme of things, those "close" systems
comprise an infinitessimal portion. I stand by may allegation that
*virtually* all stars are many, many, many, etc., lifetimes distant, without
going 100 times lightspeed, i.e., doing the impossible.
>So even neglecting the time dilation effect, you can
> see that the average human lifespan would be no bar to interstellar
> travel.
I understand the time-dilation effect (as well as a layman can), but (1)
that doesn't do anyone on either end of the trip any good. They are still
on isolated islands, for all intents. Moreover, doesn't travel at close to
lightspeed also get you approaching infinite mass? That's a lot to push
around, infinite mass. I've had trouble recently, and I've only gained a
few pounds...
>Bob's point was that if we had a spaceship capable of
> travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light, time would
> slow down for the passengers such that their lifespans, from our
> perspective, would be considerably extended.
You won't get any women on the ship, however, once they hear about the mass
increase.
Reggie Perrin
atlasbugged wrote:
> "Reggie Perrin" <reggie...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1131474143.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> many, etc., lifetimes distant, without going 100 times lightspeed,
> i.e., doing the impossible.
No, no, no. If you were to travel at 0.99c, you would live about 7
times as long (as seen from our perspective). Raise it to 0.999c, and
you get to live about 22 times as long. And so on, until you get to be
an immortal photon. Point is, there's nothing in the theory of
relativity to prevent you traversing the whole universe in your
lifetime. Might leave you with a hefty fuel bill, though.
> [...]
> Moreover, doesn't travel at close to lightspeed also get you approaching
> infinite mass? That's a lot to push around, infinite mass. I've had trouble
> recently, and I've only gained a few pounds...
:-)
Yup, effective mass increases at the same rate as time dilates, so the
quicker you want to go, the more energy you need. But again, that's a
practical limitation, not one imposed by the theory. I think that was
Bob's point.
> [...]
> You won't get any women on the ship, however, once they hear about the
> mass increase.
Ah, they should be fine with it. As far as those on board are
concerned, there is no mass increase, and I'm sure a woman wouldn't be
overly troubled by somebody back on Earth calling her fat, particularly
not when said person would be ageing faster.
fred...@papertig.com
<snip long rant the sum effect of which is: Squaw Walker doesn't like
me>
> ....Turn it on it's head, and ask him about his opinion on
> the slaughter, fraud and anhilation of Amerindians.
Please do Mork. I believe the annihilation of the American Indians was
fully justified, so if you want to make something of it, feel free.
> You might find the results amusing, instread of infuriating.
Well, maybe not, see cuz Mork is in an awkward position here. He is
trying to maintain this charade that he represents the true views of
Ayn Rand vs. those neocon ARIians who have distorted it under the evil
influence of Leonard Peikoff. Mork thinks he knows what Ayn Rand really
thought and even where he doesn't know he is sure what she would think
if only she had read Norman Finkelstein, not to mention Mork's website.
Except that on this matter in regard to the American Indians Ayn Rand
was quite explicit so there can be no doubt on the subject. Thus we
have here a potential minefield for our Mork to traverse - and since he
seems to have difficulty crossing the street without bumping into
something, this topic seems especially fraught with danger for the
confused little lad.
Fred Weiss
MW
"Squaw Walker"
See what I mean Mark?
Now watch what would happen if I were to point out to Fred that this
sort of thing is highly objectionable... as say, were somebody to start
refering to Ayn Rand as "Kike Rand".
He won't see the contradiction between his own behavior, and what he is
falsely accusing you of.
Isn't he a hoot?
Seriously, use some nazi quotes about the reasons Nazis gave for their
"Final Solution" and compare and contrast them to Fred's various
rationales for applauding the extermination of Amerindians by the US
Government and it's agents... and watch his head explode.
fred...@papertig.com
> Fred Weiss:
>
> "Squaw Walker"
>
> See what I mean Mark?
>
> Now watch what would happen if I were to point out to Fred that this
> sort of thing is highly objectionable...
You mean like your rants against me?
> Isn't he a hoot?
Well, that' s true. Also intelligent and charming.
> Seriously, use some nazi quotes about the reasons Nazis gave for their
> "Final Solution" and compare and contrast them to Fred's various
> rationales for applauding the extermination of Amerindians by the US
> Government and it's agents... and watch his head explode.
The situations were of course entirely different - not the least of
which was that the Indians were Stone Age savages and that most of them
refused to assimilate into American society. That they choose not to
was perhaps understandable (if not excusable - and many did
successfully) but it created an untenable situation. Imagine some
group, say the Italians, coming here and announcing that they would not
recognize our laws and proceeded to set up their own tribal gov'ts.
The Jews on the other hand were not only fully assimilated and
productive contributors to European society, they were eager *to break
down the barriers* which had been set up to exclude them, i.e. they
wanted to assimilate even more. And of course they were thoroughly
peaceful and posed no threat to anyone.
Now there were instances where it is at least arguable that the Indians
were willing to assimilate, e.g. the Cherokees, and where they were
nonetheless treated unjustly. However even the Cherokees regarded
themselves as a separate "nation" governed by their own tribal laws.
The cultural clash between stone age savages and a rapidly advancing
industrial society could not in my view be overcome - at least not in
that era when non-whites, even women for that matter, were regarded as
inferior. We were building a nation, the Indians wanted to continue
roaming vast tracts of land and hunting wild buffalo.
If anything we were kind to them, giving them reservations where they
could live in peace and do what they wanted, so long as they stayed the
hell out of our way.
Fred Weiss
Mark N
> "Mark" <x...@nexet.net> wrote in message
> news:1131416131....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Scratch Mark N from the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists. My mistake
>>entirely.
>
> Fool! Mark N. is the most sinister ;-), the most devious /:->, the most
> dastardly of them all :-)))!!!
Curse you, Atlas Bugged! I think I really had this guy fooled, until you
came along and blew my cover! Thanks a lot! :-(
Mark
x
x
David Buchner
> I live over in Geezer-City (aka Rossmore)
aka The VILLAGE.
David Buchner
> P.S. "Flaunt" is a curious word to use. Reminds me of those people who
> say that they don't mind gays, so long as they don't "flaunt it".
A guy on another newsgroup recently declared that there's no
"persecution" of atheists in the US -- just as long as they're not "in
people's faces" about it. Like, for example, letting anybody find out
they're atheists.
David Buchner
> ....Obviously that's a boldfaced lie on my part, attributing things to him
> he clearly never said.
What I want to understand is this:
Is that a boldfaced lie? Or is it bald-faced, as I've also heard it? Or
bare-faced, as it was at the start of this thread?
Are there bare-assed lies?
Oh, and you are tie is askew.
David Buchner
> Just like Fred is about Aboriginals of North America.
So...
Fred's an Antiboriginite?
Robert J. Kolker
That is what I called the place when I first moved in. It bugged the
hell out of my wife when I did that.
I am number 6.
Bob Kolker
Mark
"[Mark] is trying to maintain this charade
that he represents the true views of Ayn Rand
vs. those neocon ARIians who have distorted
it ... . [Mark] thinks he knows what Ayn
Rand really thought ..."
Actually, I do know what Ayn Rand really thought. You can too: just
read her books.
I quote Ayn Rand extensively, in full context, at ARIwatch. On many
important issues ARI is Anti-AR.
Mr. Weiss again:
"... [Mark] is sure what [Ayn Rand] would
think if only she had read Norman Finkelstein,
not to mention Mork's website."
One can reply to sincere criticism, but absurdity piled on absurdity
only needs quoting for its dismissal.
"... [Mark] seems to have difficulty crossing
the street without bumping into something ..."
Etc, etc.
The American Indians are the affair of Mr. Weiss and MW for now. (I'll
have occasion to bring them up on ARIwatch when I critique a talk by
Leonard Peikoff.)
Reggie Perrin, and now David Buchner, point out -- gleefully -- a minor
typo in a recent post of mine: you're <--> your. It's their glee
that's telling.
Mark
Mark
I appreciate your support.
Still, I must comment a bit negatively on a couple of things.
"... you [Mark] did say something similar
to what Fred Weiss attributed to you."
After reading your post further I'm glad to say you don't mean that the
way it sounds. I want to emphasize: I said nothing like what Mr.
Weiss attributed to me. Sure, some of the WORDS are the same. But
only with a sort of word-salad standard of analysis could my writing
be called "similar." And then Thomas Jefferson would be similar to
Emanuel Kant. I'll return to this point later.
"... in all fairness to all parties, in
the thread in question [uh oh, here comes
criticism of yours truly], you were the
first person to bring up Israel and the
NeoCons. That people who are supporters
of Israel would react badly to this,
doesn't surprise me."
ARI supported the Neocon agenda during the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
ARI supports Israel 100% and unquestioningly. The Neocon business
I've analyzed on ARIwatch and I'll have more to say there in future.
The Israel business I've yet to do. It will require several articles
and a lot of journalistic detail. ARI claims that Israel is a bastion
of freedom in the Middle East and that it is America's ally. Both
positions have problems.
"Frankly [uh oh, more criticism], you
seemed to be trying to be as offensive
as possible with that statement about
Israel and Neocons ..."
I'm being forthright and direct. If that offends someone, it's their
offense.
"... and you achieved it."
Considering Misters Weiss, Bugged, Perrin, etc. evidently!
Back to Mr. Weiss and his smear-job:
"You will not win with him going on and
on about this, in the fashion that he's
been doing."
Actually he hasn't had much to say in his defense. In any case, I'm
not interested in "winning" or convincing any of these Rogues in the
Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists. That would be futile. I address
myself to the clear-minded of the audience. A lot more people read
than post.
You refer to:
"... the strange morality of Fred Weiss,
who while acting hysterical at any
possible word, phrase or off-hand remark,
being possibly considered proof of anti-
semitism ...
Well said. Mr. Weiss is the one who is "fixated" and "obsessed."
Mark
Malrassic Park
>The situations were of course entirely different - not the least of
>which was that the Indians were Stone Age savages and that most of them
>refused to assimilate into American society.
How do you know? If the general opinion of the time was that they were
wild, primitive, and often dangerous savages closer to animals then
men, then hardly anybody would have given a thought to "assimilating"
them, and none of the "Stone Age savages" would have bothered to try
because of all the prejudice, such as revealed in your post.
Ken Gardner
<fred...@papertig.com> wrote:
>> Chris Cathcart is back in the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists.
>> Added is Malrassic Park.
> Let's have a contest to see who can get on and off Mork's list the most
> times in the next 24 hours.
This is unfair. I don't interact with the guy because he gives me the
creeps.
Ken
Ken Gardner
"Chris Cathcart" wrote:
>> "Rand is okay, because IN MORK THE DORK'S OWN WORDS, 'She didn't flaunt
>> her Jewishness.'"
> Actually, I plead guilty to smearing Mr. Weiss here, as the "Dork" part
> wasn't in his original phrasing under discussion. Obviously that's a
> boldfaced lie on my part, attributing things to him he clearly never
> said.
Fake but accurate? :)
By the way, is it just me, or does anyone else detect a whiff of
anti-semitism in Dorkhead's rantings? This isn't the first time, nor is it
the first time I have mentioned it. Moreover, this crap has no place here
at HPO. I think we should add Dorkhead to the ban list.
Ken
Ken Gardner
"Chris Cathcart" wrote:
> It's no secret that Mr. Weiss thinks you're anti-semitic based on
> things you say.
Fred is not alone.
>One could question the relationship between what you
> say, and his inferences he makes from them. I've never really looked
> into the matter to see if you're actually anti-semitic.
You should.
[...]
Ken
Atlas Bugged
>> P.S. "Flaunt" is a curious word to use. Reminds me of those people who
>> say that they don't mind gays, so long as they don't "flaunt it".
"David Buchner" <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
news:1h5ps8k.1j6ihoxvh750mN%buc...@wcta.net...
> A guy on another newsgroup recently declared that there's no
> "persecution" of atheists in the US -- just as long as they're not "in
> people's faces" about it. Like, for example, letting anybody find out
> they're atheists.
If you're talking about that moron on alt.tv.firefly, I explained to him how
my lawyer friend was fired from her firm when it was discovered that she was
atheist. How did he respond? Snippety-doo-dah, then more spew like I never
said anything.
Reggie Perrin
Ken Gardner wrote:
> [...]
> By the way, is it just me, or does anyone else detect a whiff
> of anti-semitism in Dorkhead's rantings?
[*visions of Ken, emerging from the jungle: "What's that? The war's
over, you say?" ;-)]
No, it's not just you, Ken (scan further up the thread for details).
But it's never too late to join the Rogues Gallery of Smear-Artists.
It's the *only* place to be seen, don't you know.
> Moreover, this crap has no place here at HPO. I think we should
> add Dorkhead to the ban list.
Can't agree with you there, I'm afraid. For one thing, despite the
numerous hints, the person in question hasn't actually come right out
and said it. For another thing, it sets a dangerous precedent. I have
seen many comments on here that strike me as borderline racist,
homophobic etc., but I think it's healthier that the people who make
them are challenged rather than banned.
fred...@papertig.com
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:36:58 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> >The situations were of course entirely different - not the least of
> >which was that the Indians were Stone Age savages and that most of them
> >refused to assimilate into American society.
>
> How do you know? If the general opinion of the time was that they were
> wild, primitive, and often dangerous savages closer to animals then
> men, then hardly anybody would have given a thought to "assimilating"
> them, and none of the "Stone Age savages" would have bothered to try
Possibly, prejudice was definitely there. But blacks managed to
overcome it as did many immigrant groups.
> ...because of all the prejudice, such as revealed in your post.
What prejudice? I'm simply stating the facts. I certainly have nothing
against Indians today, now that they are harmless, and some of them
have proven to be admirably hardworking and/or entrepeneurial. On the
other hand, would I have been prejudiced in the 19th Cent? Very likely.
(Though I should add that I am not an admirer of the "welfare state
reservation Indians" who sit around expecting to be taken care of. They
remind me of the Palestinians. It's over 100 years already guys, get
your butts in gear! Get the fuck off the reservations and get a life.)
Fred Weiss
Malrassic Park
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:36:58 +0000 (UTC), fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>>
>> >The situations were of course entirely different - not the least of
>> >which was that the Indians were Stone Age savages and that most of them
>> >refused to assimilate into American society.
>>
>> How do you know? If the general opinion of the time was that they were
>> wild, primitive, and often dangerous savages closer to animals then
>> men, then hardly anybody would have given a thought to "assimilating"
>> them, and none of the "Stone Age savages" would have bothered to try
>
>Possibly, prejudice was definitely there. But blacks managed to
>overcome it as did many immigrant groups.
Of course, the North ended slavery but not prejudice. However, Blacks
were not thrown onto reservations, meaning they had to integrate
themselves into society. So there is a definite social distinction
between Blacks and Indians, and I see no reason to equate them in this
context.
>> ...because of all the prejudice, such as revealed in your post.
>
>What prejudice? I'm simply stating the facts. I certainly have nothing
>against Indians today, now that they are harmless, and some of them
>have proven to be admirably hardworking and/or entrepeneurial. On the
>other hand, would I have been prejudiced in the 19th Cent? Very likely.
>(Though I should add that I am not an admirer of the "welfare state
>reservation Indians" who sit around expecting to be taken care of. They
>remind me of the Palestinians. It's over 100 years already guys, get
>your butts in gear! Get the fuck off the reservations and get a life.)
Statements such as your ".most of them (Indians) refused to assimilate
into American society" indicate that you pin the blame on Indians for
their problems in the past, and probably present since you are now
accusing some of them of being lazy welfare recipients who only want
to sit around on the reservation and collect checks. Why didn't you
also tell them to stop spending their checks on booze and save it for
the future?
(I'm sure alot of them Palestinian Arabs are have read your post and
taken it to heart.)
Malrassic Park
<kesga...@charter.net> wrote:
>By the way, is it just me, or does anyone else detect a whiff of
>anti-semitism in Dorkhead's rantings? This isn't the first time, nor is it
>the first time I have mentioned it. Moreover, this crap has no place here
>at HPO. I think we should add Dorkhead to the ban list.
I am Jewosh foreigner from Israel, and I being Foreignor not to
knowing what "add Dorkhead to the ban list" am meaning, nor?
Malrassic Park
Forgive, am meanings to wrote ~neither?~ and not ~nor?~
P.M. What meanings does this? "81.8181818181818% quotes in 11 lines."
vonvegas
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:dks886$k3o$1...@victor.killfile.org...
>
Ken wrote:
> I think we should add Dorkhead to the ban list.
Why have you suddenly become so willing to use the power of the collective
(to ban) rather than either ignore or confront?
Of course I didn't even want to ban Michael Bernstein so mebbe you think me
overpermissive? Whatever happened with Bernstein anyway? All I really know
is he stopped posting but I don't know how that came about. Do you know? Do
we know who he really was?
Vonvegas
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>Why have you suddenly become so willing to use the power of the collective
>(to ban) rather than either ignore or confront?
>Of course I didn't even want to ban Michael Bernstein so mebbe you think me
>overpermissive? Whatever happened with Bernstein anyway? All I really know
>is he stopped posting but I don't know how that came about. Do you know? Do
>we know who he really was?
A certain Cornell U. law student.
fred...@papertig.com
> Of course, the North ended slavery but not prejudice. However, Blacks
> were not thrown onto reservations, meaning they had to integrate
> themselves into society. So there is a definite social distinction
> between Blacks and Indians, and I see no reason to equate them in this
> context.
There were Indians who left the reservation and others who never went
in the first place, who had previously chosen to break with their
tribes and integrate into US society. Indians are not required to stay
on reservations now.
Blacks encountered major prejudice and had many barriers to overcome if
they wanted to advance - but many have. It has been no worse for the
Indians.
> Statements such as your ".most of them (Indians) refused to assimilate
> into American society" indicate that you pin the blame on Indians...
Yes, I do. Their choice was to remain a primitive savage or join a
rapidly growing industrial society with numerous opportunities for
education and material advancement. The rational choice should be
obvious - even in the face of prejudice, the same prejudice which other
immigrants faced. And similar barriers to get around, such as language.
> ... you are now
> accusing some of them of being lazy welfare recipients who only want
> to sit around on the reservation and collect checks.
Some are. It's simply a fact.
> (I'm sure alot of them Palestinian Arabs are have read your post and
> taken it to heart.)
They should.
Fred Weiss
Malrassic Park
>Malrassic Park wrote:
.
>> Of course, the North ended slavery but not prejudice. However, Blacks
>> were not thrown onto reservations, meaning they had to integrate
>> themselves into society. So there is a definite social distinction
>> between Blacks and Indians, and I see no reason to equate them in this
>> context.
.
>There were Indians who left the reservation and others who never went
>in the first place, who had previously chosen to break with their
>tribes and integrate into US society. Indians are not required to stay
>on reservations now.
.
>Blacks encountered major prejudice and had many barriers to overcome if
>they wanted to advance - but many have. It has been no worse for the
>Indians.
.
But like I said, Indians were forced onto reservations, Blacks were
not. Furthermore, the Indian nations were conquered, Blacks were not.
.
>> Statements such as your ".most of them (Indians) refused to assimilate
>> into American society" indicate that you pin the blame on Indians...
.
>Yes, I do. Their choice was to remain a primitive savage or join a
>rapidly growing industrial society with numerous opportunities for
>education and material advancement. The rational choice should be
>obvious - even in the face of prejudice, the same prejudice which other
>immigrants faced. And similar barriers to get around, such as language.
.
There was no such choice given to the Indians. Was this put in writing
somewhere? I don't think that would account for the various treaties
which were later broken by our government.
.
>> ... you are now
>> accusing some of them of being lazy welfare recipients who only want
>> to sit around on the reservation and collect checks.
>Some are. It's simply a fact.
Carefully chosen, no doubt.
Atlas Bugged
news:GMucf.17$7B.11@fed1read02...
> Why have you suddenly become so willing to use the power of the collective
> (to ban) rather than either ignore or confront?
I agree it's largely senseless to do it on UseNet. The interesting question
would be if Mork owned up to being a Jew-hater. Would you still not want
him banned?
> Of course I didn't even want to ban Michael Bernstein so mebbe you think
> me overpermissive?
He was a close call, but in the end, he was commiting fraud half the time.
>Whatever happened with Bernstein anyway? All I really know
> is he stopped posting but I don't know how that came about. Do you know?
> Do we know who he really was?
Who cares? He got disrespected the old fashioned way - he earned it.
Mark
wrote -- parroting Mr. Weiss's juvenile corruption of "Mark":
"The interesting question would be if Mork owned up to being a
Jew-hater."
The interesting question would be if Atlas Bugged owned up to being a
wife-beater.
dd...@daviddfriedman.com
Mark wrote:
...
> Perhaps including you in the Rogues Gallery of Smear Artists was
> premature. You might elaborate regarding Mr. Weiss in order to make
> your position clear. I gather -- now -- that you haven't hitched
> yourself to his wagon like Atlas Bugged, etc. have.
Long time posters will appreciate the irony of classifying me as
someone who "hitched his wagon" to that of Fred Weiss.
Ken Gardner
"Reggie Perrin" wrote:
> [*visions of Ken, emerging from the jungle: "What's that? The war's
> over, you say?" ;-)]
:)
> No, it's not just you, Ken (scan further up the thread for details).
> But it's never too late to join the Rogues Gallery of Smear-Artists.
> It's the *only* place to be seen, don't you know.
Well, I have been busy lately, so I cannot make it on volume of posting.
>> Moreover, this crap has no place here at HPO. I think we should
>> add Dorkhead to the ban list.
> Can't agree with you there, I'm afraid. For one thing, despite the
> numerous hints, the person in question hasn't actually come right out
> and said it.
He is like those libertarians who deny they are are anarchists. :)
[Insert "duck...INCOMING!!!" here...]
> For another thing, it sets a dangerous precedent. I have
> seen many comments on here that strike me as borderline racist,
> homophobic etc., but I think it's healthier that the people who make
> them are challenged rather than banned.
Well, I was only half-serious about the ban comment anyway. I realize that
sometimes this doesn't come through in a usenet post.
Ken
Don't Panic
Malrassic Park wrote:
> .
> But like I said, Indians were forced onto reservations, Blacks were
> not. Furthermore, the Indian nations were conquered, Blacks were not.
Fraud just keeps digging himself deeper and deeper. It's heartening to
know, however, that Fraud can condescend to admit that a few of those
injuns actually work hard.
Don't Panic
fred...@papertig.com wrote:
>
> The situations were of course entirely different - not the least of
> which was that the Indians were Stone Age savages and that most of them
> refused to assimilate into American society. That they choose not to
> was perhaps understandable (if not excusable - and many did
> successfully) but it created an untenable situation.
The untenable situation being that they had all this land and natural
resources and refused to utilize it to its fullest potential They
simply had to be killed.
It's a shame to see good land go to waste on inferiors who don't
understand the meaning of private property.
Keep digging, Fraud!
Ken Gardner
"vonvegas" <vonv...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I think we should add Dorkhead to the ban list.
> Why have you suddenly become so willing to use the power of the collective
> (to ban) rather than either ignore or confront?
Because we can.
> Of course I didn't even want to ban Michael Bernstein so mebbe you think
> me overpermissive?
Or psychotic.
>Whatever happened with Bernstein anyway? All I really know is he stopped
>posting but I don't know how that came about. Do you know? Do we know who
>he really was?
Uh, don't go there...
Ken
Mark
"He [Mark] is like those libertarians who
deny they are are anarchists. :)
A smiley ( :) ) after a smear doesn't make it any less a smear.
Mr. Gardner insinuates -- he's too dishonest to say it forthrightly --
that Mr. Weiss told the truth. Apparently Mr. Gardner is no better
than Mr. Weiss.
These people -- Weiss, Bugged, Perrin, Gardner, etc. -- would make
great judges in a witch trial. Denial is evidence of guilt. The very
act of your observing that Mr. Weiss lied is evidence he must have told
the truth.
In the following by Mr.Gardner, he parrots Mr. Weiss's juvenile
epithet "Dorkhead" for yours truly:
"... is it just me, or does anyone else
detect a whiff of anti-semitism in
Dorkhead's rantings?"
And goes on to call for my banning from the list. Actually we should
ban Mr. Gardner and everyone else in the Rogues Gallery of Smear
Artists.