More Off Topic Drivel From Roy
Joe Thomas
Kenny McCormack
A <aa...@att.net> got on his hobbyhorse once again:
>AT&T hates puppies, therefore healthcare reform is bad.
danny burstein
>http://www.infowars.com/americans-want-to-be-slaves
>"Americans want to be Slaves"
>Adam Murdock, M.D.
>Infowars.com
>January 3, 2009
- note the date...
>Let us just examine a few of the events of the last two months to see where
>America sits on the major issues of our day.
>Recently, we were made aware of the attempt to bring down a transatlantic
>flight by the 'underwear bomber'.
- so it's not "A" simply regurgitating grumbles from a year ago,
but it's a maroone who can't even get the date right.
In other words, yawn.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Loki
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>http://www.infowars.com/americans-want-to-be-slaves
>
>"Americans want to be Slaves"
>
>Adam Murdock, M.D.
>Infowars.com
>January 3, 2009
>
>
>Are Americans willing to trade their freedoms for a false sense of security?
Damn you are a moron. Next are you going to repeat the story that
Steven Hawking would be dead if he were living in England, as has been
reported elsewhere?
Loki
Libertarian truth: Children, criminals, death cultists, and you
all have the same inalienable right to own any weaponry:
conventional, chemical, biological, or nuclear.
Bill Schenley
>
>> http://www.infowars.com/roylieberman-was-born-with-the-defect
>
> > "Americans want to be Slaves"
Roy, I want you to know, that I, too, am
appalled with Obama's health care program.
For one thing, the part about shipping retards
to another country just isn't right. I want you
to know that my thoughts and prayers will go
with you. Be strong, stay safe and dress warm
... And don't forget to pack your Crayolas.
I hope they will allow you to write every year or
so.
Bill Schenley
>
> > > > x-no-archive: no
>
> > > > http://www.infowars.com/roylieberman-was-born-with-the-defect
>
> > > > "Americans want to be Slaves"
>
> > Roy, I want you to know, that I, too, am
> > appalled with Obama's health care program.
> > For one thing, the part about shipping retards
>
> '60s slang word, and you don't have the smarts to be more circumspect or
> civil in your nonsensical allegation.
> Where are your drug-and-alcohol-abusing buddies today, in the ground?
> Why aren't you there with them already after your 40+ years of drug
> abusing?
>
> > to another country just isn't right. I want you
> > to know that my thoughts and prayers will go
> > with you. Be strong, stay safe and dress warm
> > ... And don't forget to pack your Crayolas.
>
> > I hope they will allow you to write every year or
> > so.
>
> from the Govenor so you could again vote after your 40+ years of many
> drug-and-alcohol convictions? Why did PA turn your request down--were you
> too drug-addled in your hand-written letter, and used so many slang words
> and cross-outs they couldn't understand why you even bothered to try?
*Well*! So much for those "thoughts and prayers" ... And don't bother
writing when you get there ...
Loki
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Loki" <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1sm2k5he3ubd1iaro...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:51:44 -0600, "A" <aa...@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>
>>>http://www.infowars.com/americans-want-to-be-slaves
>>>
>>>"Americans want to be Slaves"
>>>
>>>Adam Murdock, M.D.
>>>Infowars.com
>>>January 3, 2009
>>>
>>>
>>>Are Americans willing to trade their freedoms for a false sense of
>>>security?
>>
>> Damn you are a moron.
>
> You aren't so bright yourself, dim bulb.
Be that as it may, I can clear the intellectual bar that you set
wearing cowboy boots.
>> Next are you going to repeat the story that
>> Steven Hawking would be dead if he were living in England, as has been
>> reported elsewhere?
>
> Where did you hear that from, one of your crazy-buddies?
No, on July 31 Investors.com published a story opposing the British
health care system and included the comment:
>Stephen Hawking "wouldn't have a chance" in the such a system.
Stephen Hawking weighed in and pointed out that had it not been for
the British health care system, he would in fact have died many years
ago.
Loki
Flip answers are more powerful than the best reasoned
arguments, which is why so many libertarians are in
important government positions.
Loki
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Loki" <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:hq03k5dlg6qfru54d...@4ax.com...
> Your democrats *are* in important government positions--and look at
>the rotten mess they've made!
And beyond pointing fingers and complaining, what exactly have the
Libertarians accomplished?
Loki
Libertarians invented outrage over government waste,
bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they
are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
Kenny McCormack
Loki <cubby...@aol.com> wrote:
...
>And beyond pointing fingers and complaining, what exactly have the
>Libertarians accomplished?
Keep in mind that "Libertarian" is BS. It is a "scratch a - find a" thing.
Scratch a "Libertarian" or an "Independent" - find a Repub who is, quite
rightly, ashamed to admit it in public. But in the privacy of the
voting booth...
And note, in the spirit of fairness, that the same is true on the other
side. If someone claims to be a "Progressive" (or whatever), they will
probably vote Democratic - and rightly so, since, like it or not, we
live in a 2 party system.
Loki
While I do not disagree with you, to the best of my knowledge there is
no "Progressive" party. "Progressive" is the new word for liberal.
But, your analogy would stick were you to substitute "Green" for
"Progressive".
Loki
Libertarian truth: Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred
mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
Kenny McCormack
Loki <cubby...@aol.com> wrote:
...
>While I do not disagree with you, to the best of my knowledge there is
>no "Progressive" party. "Progressive" is the new word for liberal.
Heh. I'm beginning to think that "Libertarian" is the new word for
Republican.
>But, your analogy would stick were you to substitute "Green" for
>"Progressive".
Point taken. I wasn't all that concerned with getting the exact
wording. I'm thinking of the people who wanted to vote for Nader in
either 2000 or 2004 and were told not to do so, since they were (and
this is true, sad to say) just throwing away their vote and helping the
GOP.
Not that it really matters, but what party label(s) has Nader used over
the years?
Dave Sill
>
> Keep in mind that "Libertarian" is BS.
No it's not.
> It is a "scratch a - find a" thing.
> Scratch a "Libertarian" or an "Independent" - find a Repub who is, quite
> rightly, ashamed to admit it in public. But in the privacy of the
> voting booth...
Speaking of BS... I'm a libertarian who votes libertarian. There may not
be a lot of us, and there may be a lot of people who claim to be
libertarian who don't vote that way, but that doesn't mean the whole
ideology/party exists for the purpose of shielding ashamed Republicans
from the public.
> And note, in the spirit of fairness, that the same is true on the other
> side. If someone claims to be a "Progressive" (or whatever), they will
> probably vote Democratic - and rightly so, since, like it or not, we
> live in a 2 party system.
We live in a de facto 2-party system, and long as everyone thinks that
way, it's going to stay that way. But there are a lot of people who
aren't happy with either party, so maybe that'll change some day.
-Dave
B. R. Slim
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 22:52:20 -0600, "An Unemployed Eight-Year-Old Girl"
> <aa...@att.net> shat:
>
>> You are hereby condemned to literacy purgatory for using that
>> terrible '60s slang word, and you don't have the smarts to be more
>> circumspect or civil in your nonsensical allegation.
>
> time...until someone calls you an accurate name that you don't like?
>
> ---
> "I won't write with my Crayolas"
> --An Unemployed Eight-Year-Old Girl, 2010-01-04
LOL. Fodder for The Sayings of Roy LIEberman, Volume VI.
BobF
[Default] On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:09:31 -0500, Dave Sill
<da...@sill.org> magnanimously proffered:
>Speaking of BS... I'm a libertarian who votes libertarian. There may not
>be a lot of us, and there may be a lot of people who claim to be
>libertarian who don't vote that way, but that doesn't mean the whole
>ideology/party exists for the purpose of shielding ashamed Republicans
>from the public.
Doesn't it embarrass you (and other libertarians) to have an idiot
like Roy Lieberman as your self-appointed spokesfool?
I wouldn't think that his off-topic political rants in alt.obituaries
and profligate posting to a number of groups as your Usenet
representative has not done the Libertarian cause any good over the
years.
********
I don't keep around the posts I've already read.
Otherwise, I wouldn't know where to start reading the posts where I
left off the last time I read them.
Isn't that obvious to you by now?
- From "The Sayings of Roy"
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, BobF <b...@surfwriter.net.not> wrote:
> Doesn't it embarrass you (and other libertarians) to have an idiot
> like Roy Lieberman as your self-appointed spokesfool?
You have no idea, I assure you.
On the other hand, at least Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck aren't members
of my political party.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Carson
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:
>
>In the previous article, BobF <b...@surfwriter.net.not> wrote:
>> Doesn't it embarrass you (and other libertarians) to have an idiot
>> like Roy Lieberman as your self-appointed spokesfool?
>
>You have no idea, I assure you.
What Bob and J.D. said.
Bill Schenley
> as it wasn't associated with Democrats. Never has been and never will be.
> Oh, many Republicans like to use the small 'l' (libertarian) word in order
> to curry favor among their constitutents on various issues merely for
> crass vote-getting ...
BobF
[Default] On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 01:35:01 -0600, "A" <aa...@att.net>
magnanimously proffered:
>>
>> http://snurl.com/tywsr
>
> Interesting you show the one person in the Congress who isn't a
>hypocrite, and doesn't vote trade, or pretend he can "run the country" (as
>everyone else says they can do when they get to DC, such as our current prez
>and vice-prez) and doesn't in private condemn the Constitution (our
>so-called "basic law-of-the-land") as a "G-D piece of paper" as the previous
>creep of a prez is documented and on record as saying.
Surely big boys can say God Damn without being embarrassed?
Opps ... sorry to embarrass you, Roy.
--
"Fuckwad, Asshole, POS, Twat, Twit, Dope, and finally, STFU!"
BobF
[Default] On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 01:30:30 -0600, "A" <aa...@att.net>
magnanimously proffered:
>"J.D. Baldwin" <INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message
>news:hhu2lu$8l9$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>>
>> In the previous article, BobF <b...@surfwriter.net.not> wrote:
>>> Doesn't it embarrass you (and other libertarians) to have an idiot
>>> like Roy Lieberman as your self-appointed spokesfool?
>
> Nobody is self-appointing me, Bob-o-link.
YOU have clearly appointed yourself, Roy Lieberman, by inundating this
newsgroup with your non-stop, off-topic political drivel. Oh ... I
almost forgot. You may try to hide your political rants and inane
comments by marking them "x-no-archive: yes" ... but you can't stop
people archiving them and exposing you for a fool in idiot's clothing.
>> You have no idea, I assure you.
>
> Just because we are both libertarians doesn't necessary mean we
>agree on everything, and sometimes you embarrass the heck out of me, J.D.
>And we certainly don't self-appoint the other as a spokesperson, just
>because we agree on the same philosophical idea.
There is no one. Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Libertarian or
Whaeverian on this newsgroup who posts more off-topic political drivel
than you do Roy. No one. Not ever.
That's why everyone, even those with whom you share a core political
or "philosophical idea" consider you to be a total fuckwit.
>> On the other hand, at least Al Sharpton and Glenn Beck aren't members
>> of my political party.
>
> Yes, and don't forget Jesse Jackson.
On the other hand, the Libertarians have YOU. And what a huge
embarrassment that obviously is.
--
...call FOX NEWS at 1-888-369-4762 and vent your frustration, TELL THEM
YOU'LL NEVER SUPPORT THEM OR WATCH THEM AGAIN UNTIL THEY TREAT ALL
CANDIDATES EQUALLY.
Fox News: Unfair and Unbalanced.
Toll-free: 1-888-369-4762, then press '4' to reach their 'comment' section,
and LET 'EM HAVE IT!
While you're at it, sell any and all shares of News Corp (NYSE symbol: NWS),
parent of Fox News you may have. [presently down to $19.91; down more than
8% since Dec. 26, closed at $21.82]
Here's a list of Fox's advertisers, to boycott:
http://skinthefox.com/sponsors_001.htm
Ron Paul's exclusion from Fox's "debate" is gonna hurt Fox (and News Corp) a
lot more than it is gonna hurt Ron Paul.
Whatever the MSM does or tries to do to Ron Paul merely bounces off him and
sticks to the offender.
PS to Fox and others: this unintended consequence is called 'blowback', just
as the CIA writes on its reports on what it does overseas in our name in
overturning governments it doesn't like (a la Iran, and
democratically-elected Prime Minister Mossadegh in 1953 because he dared to
oppose the British in wanting to keep his nation's oil from BP).
Bill Schenley
> and doesn't vote trade, or pretend he can "run the country" (as everyone
> else says they can do when they get to DC, such as our current prez and
> vice-prez) and doesn't in private condemn the Constitution (our so-called
> "basic law-of-the-land") as a "G-D piece of paper" as the previous creep
> of a prez is documented and on record as saying.
There was nothing "interesting" about it. *You* wrote:
"Libertarian was *never* associated
with Republican ... Never has been
and never will be."
- Crazy Fucking Roy Lieberman -
Isn't the Republican Congressman from Texas associated with Libertarians?
This is really just a yes or no question ... No one needs a diversionary
quote from Thomas Jefferson ... Just a yes_or_no ...
You also wrote:
"Oh, many Republicans like to use
the small 'l' (libertarian) word in order
to curry favor among their constitutents
on various issues merely for crass
vote-getting ..."
- Crazy Fucking Roy Lieberman -
And doesn't the Republican Congressman from Texas like to use the
"(libertarian) word in order to curry favor" from among his "constituents on
various issues merely for crass vote-getting?" Other-fucking-wise ... he
wouldn't pretend to be one thing when is actually something else ...
You further frothed ...
"Interesting you show the one person
in the Congress who isn't a hypocrite ..."
- Crazy Fucking Roy Lieberman -
Is the congressman from Texas a fucking Republican or is he a fucking
Libertarian?
And finally, in all your craziness, you wrote:
" ... or pretend he can 'run the country'"
- Crazy Fucking Roy Lieberman -
Uh ...
1988 - http://snurl.com/tyy80
2008 - http://snurl.com/tyy7l
2012 - http://snurl.com/tyy7d
For someone who doesn't "pretend he can run the country" ... he sure the
fuck is trying hard to get the job ...
J.D. Baldwin
In the previous article, A <aa...@att.net> wrote:
> Interesting you show the one person in the Congress who isn't
> a hypocrite, and doesn't vote trade, or pretend he can "run the
> country" (as everyone else says they can do when they get to DC,
> such as our current prez and vice-prez) and doesn't in private
> condemn the Constitution (our so-called "basic law-of-the-land") as
> a "G-D piece of paper" as the previous creep of a prez is documented
> and on record as saying.
a) Bush didn't say that. It was made up.
b) Grow the hell up a little.
c) Try to dial it back a notch or three. Please.
Kenny McCormack
J.D. Baldwin <ne...@baldwin.users.panix.com> wrote:
>
>In the previous article, A <aa...@att.net> wrote:
>> Interesting you show the one person in the Congress who isn't
>> a hypocrite, and doesn't vote trade, or pretend he can "run the
>> country" (as everyone else says they can do when they get to DC,
>> such as our current prez and vice-prez) and doesn't in private
>> condemn the Constitution (our so-called "basic law-of-the-land") as
>> a "G-D piece of paper" as the previous creep of a prez is documented
>> and on record as saying.
>
>a) Bush didn't say that. It was made up.
9/11 didn't happen either. It was all just a creation of the liberal
media.
Using much the same technology as when they faked the moon landing.
David Carson
> Et tu, Brutus?
How a person says things is just as important as what he says.
The way you say things is consistently a liability to your intended
message. For example, I used to like Albert Pujols until you started
going on about him. Now, thanks to you, I have a kill filter on my
newsreader to delete messages with the word "pujols" in the subject. And
also, thanks to you, whenever I hear the name "Albert Pujols", the next
words to come to mind are "blow-up doll". Is that really what you wanted
to happen when you started bragging about him? For people to go out of
their way to avoid reading about him, and for people to associate his very
name with a sex toy? No, of course that isn't what you intended, but it's
what happened. It's the way you say things.
The same thing applies to libertarian stuff. There are probably quite a
few people who have joined this group over the years with only a fuzzy
idea of what the word "libertarian" means. And, thanks to you, they now
think it's some nutcase, weirdo ideology, because that's the impression
they get from reading your posts about it. You don't intend to present it
as a nutcase, weirdo ideology, but yet, you end up doing it nevertheless.
It's the way you say things.
I told you this a few years ago, and it went completely over your head.
I'm going to tell you again, and it will go over your head again. Still,
here it is: if you want people in this newsgroup to have a positive
impression of libertarians, your first step should be to stop posting
about them.
Loki
wrote:
Mr. Carson, even though you and I have seldom if ever agreed on
anything, I applaud this post.
Loki
Libertarian Truth: It's time the new pro-freedom libertarian
platform was implemented; child labor, orphanages,
sweatshops, poorhouses, company towns, monopolies,
trusts, cartels, blacklists, private goons, slumlords, etc.
islanders
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 01:31:12 -0600, "A" <a...@att.net> wrote:
> > � � � � Et tu, Brutus?
>
> How a person says things is just as important as what he says.
>
Utterly brilliant
Joe Pucillo
> YOU have clearly appointed yourself, Roy Lieberman, by inundating this
> newsgroup with your non-stop, off-topic political drivel.
And he will continue to do so, so long as people respond to him.
JP
David Carson
> How should I say it, David?
> Since you obviously are so constructive, tell me how I should
>say it and I'll do it!
Stop being so adamant about everything. You have this way of approaching
every topic as if the sole reason you were placed on Earth is to set
everyone straight, no matter how many times you must repeat yourself, and
no matter how many exclamation points it takes.
Here's an illustration:
Normal person 1: My favorite pizza topping is sausage.
Normal person 2: I like mushrooms.
Roy: Everyone knows best pizza topping is pepperoni, you lame-brains! Here
are some books about pepperoni! They will prove I'm right! What do you
think of THAT, sausage-head and mushroom-breath? Here are some quotations
about pepperoni!! I bet you feel pretty stupid now, don't you? In fact, I
have some pepperoni with me, and I want you to eat it right now and tell
me if you still think stupid sausage and mangy mushrooms are better!!!
You may think this is ridiculous, but believe me, this is how you come
across to quite a few people here when discussing anything ... whether
it's politics, or even non-political topics such as ... oh, I don't know
... analog-to-digital TV conversion.
Loki
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>"Loki" <cubby...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:vgk7k5t8khcjpvtp4...@4ax.com...
> After reading the above crazy-lyin' rant over-and-over again, let's
>appoint Loki as the new political drivel king.
> How does that sound to you, David?
> And finally, let's tax Loki to death to pay for his guvmint-run
>health-care and other schemes, until he begs for mercy.
On the other hand, idiot Roy would prefer to leave his accessibility
to health care in the hands of insurance companies which are more
concerned in their bottom lines than in the health of any of their
members.
Loki
Libertarians invented outrage over government waste,
bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they
are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
Matthew Kruk
news:COednc2iW8jLktnW...@speakeasy.net...
... and blow up dolls ...
Bill Schenley
>
> making any logical case against me as much as you are resorting to crass
> name-calling and not saying anything positive (if you have any in the
> first place) about what *you* believe.
Heh ... *I* don't have to make a "logical case" against
you. No one makes "logical case" against you ... better
than you.
> > Isn't the Republican Congressman from Texas associated with
> > Libertarians? This is really just a yes or no question ... No one needs
> > a diversionary quote from Thomas Jefferson ... Just a yes_or_no ...
>
> ... yes. Otherwise, no.
I would have been broken hearted had you not
answered with that ...
> > "Interesting you show the one person
> > in the Congress who isn't a hypocrite ..."
> > - Crazy Fucking Roy Lieberman -
>
> > Is the congressman from Texas a fucking Republican or is he a fucking
> > Libertarian?
>
> What are *you a fucking xxx in Pennsylvania?
> Identify yourself already, Stupid, Idiotic, Snidely Bill Schenley!
Well? Is he a Republican or is he a Libertarian?
> > And finally, in all your craziness, you wrote:
>
> > " ... or pretend he can 'run the country'"
> > - Crazy Fucking Roy Lieberman -
>
> > Uh ...
> > 1988 - http://snurl.com/tyy80
>
> > 2008 - http://snurl.com/tyy7l
>
> > 2012 - http://snurl.com/tyy7d
>
> I love how you give him such great publicity (and post such good pics of
> him), even more than I do.
> Keep it up, I love it!
"Great publicity?" Pointing out 22 years of failure
to secure the job that would allow him to "run the
country?"
> > For someone who doesn't "pretend he can run the country" ... he sure the
> > fuck is trying hard to get the job ...
>
> I suppose it never occurred to you that some principled and consistent
> people (him and maybe one or two others in the Congress ...
What has occurred to me ... is that when baseball season
is over ... you put away your Albert Pujols blow-up doll
and bring out your Ron Paul blow-up doll ... And please
... I don't wanna' hear about your degenerate
Roy-Ron-Albert three-ways at Pitchers and Catchers ...
Bill Schenley
> > Now, thanks to you, I have a kill filter on my
> > newsreader to delete messages with the word "pujols" in the subject.
Roy Lieberman drooled:
> So, I'll put it a different way referencing his name and make you change
> your filter every time.
And therein is your biggest problem ... Whatever
sympathy some might have had for you ... most
likely disappeared when they read the above line by
you.
You *want* to annoy other posters ... It's what you
do. You do it all over Usenet. No newsgroup is
a safe haven for you; you're ridiculed everywhere
you post.
> > And also, thanks to you, whenever I hear the name "Albert Pujols", the
> > next words to come to mind are "blow-up doll". Is that really what you
> > wanted to happen when you started bragging about him? For people to go
> > out of their way to avoid reading about him, and for people to associate
> > his very name with a sex toy?
>
> And who made that nonsense up?
Not "who," you pathetic, fucking retard, *why* ...
> Not I! Blame Schenley, and the other creeps who repeated that junk. I
> had nothing to do with it ...
Of course you did ... ya dumbass ... You did here
what you did on many of the other baseball
newsgroups ... Force-Feed-Albert to the masses ...
You're treated here the same way you are treated
everywhere else ... Badly.
Even what is left of the Cardinals newsgroup after
most of the posters got fed up with you ... tried
to vote you off the group ...
> ...so don't put words into my mouth when others are to blame.
It's not someone else's fault, vegatard ... You could
only ride that "I was born with the defect" for so
long ...
"So, I'll put it a different way
referencing his name and make
you change your filter every time."
- Vegatard Roy Lieberman -
... Now you're going to have to carry your own water ...
rob cibik
>
> You may think this is ridiculous, but believe me, this is how you come
> across to quite a few people here when discussing anything ... whether
> it's politics, or even non-political topics such as ... oh, I don't know
> ... analog-to-digital TV conversion.
>
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in."
--Michael Corleone, Godfather III
Kris Baker
>
> I told you this a few years ago, and it went completely over your head.
> I'm going to tell you again, and it will go over your head again. Still,
> here it is: if you want people in this newsgroup to have a positive
> impression of libertarians, your first step should be to stop posting
> about them.
That's not his intent. Attention is. If we all ignored him,
wouldn't it be like a tree falling in the forest?
Kris
Kenny McCormack
Terry del Fuego <t_del...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 01:30:30 -0600, "An Unemployed Eight-Year-Old Girl"
><aa...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>And we certainly don't self-appoint the other
>
>wouldn't be a self-appointment.
It actually hurts to realize how stupid he really is.
(To see that he actually doesn't know what it means to self-appoint)
David Carson
<paralle...@ggmail.com> wrote:
>
>"David Carson" <da...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
>news:g7mdnSnhLYyrTd7W...@speakeasy.net...
>>
>> I told you this a few years ago, and it went completely over your head.
>> I'm going to tell you again, and it will go over your head again. Still,
>> here it is: if you want people in this newsgroup to have a positive
>> impression of libertarians, your first step should be to stop posting
>> about them.
>
>That's not his intent. Attention is.
I don't think that's a fair summation.
> If we all ignored him,
>wouldn't it be like a tree falling in the forest?
How about we each ignore who we want to, and interact with who we want to.
How does that work for you?
Kenny McCormack
David Carson <da...@neosoft.com> wrote:
...
>> If we all ignored him,
>>wouldn't it be like a tree falling in the forest?
>
>How about we each ignore who we want to, and interact with who we want to.
>How does that work for you?
The "shunning" thing, which is, incidentally, generally considered the
"best" way to deal with "trolls", only works if it is universal (i.e.,
everyone, without exceptions, follows the rules laid down by the leader
anti-troll).
As you can probably tell from my choice of words and use of scare quotes
above, I think this shunning business is stupid BS.