Tim's rhetoric
Scott Erb
Tim Starr wrote:
>Have Protestants & Catholics ever gotten along well?
They usually get along pretty well in every place I ever lived. Places like
northern Ireland are an exception.
>>Would you put Helmut Schmidt in the same boat as Stalin or Breshnev as
>>ideological compatriots.
>Would you deny that both the Pope & Pat Robertson are Christians?
Evading the question, eh? Typical, oh so typical. In any event, are you
equating ideology with religion (if so, which seems to be the case, you are
equating libertarianism and objectivism with a religion, which is something
you were very much against earlier).
I think YOU, Tim Starr, are closer to Helmut Schmidt in ideological beliefs
than Stalin was.
>Right wing SOCIALISTS,
Impossible, unless you want to create an idiosyncratic Tim Starr's personal
subjective view on political ideologies.
>Your posts prove your essential dishonesty:
I think I've proven pretty clearly -- with your help -- that you are simply
trying to propagandize, silence others, call names, and try to avoid rather
than engage in real debate. You have your mind made up, you see yourself as
promoting a cause, rather than discussing honestly in a search for knowledge
and understanding.
I feel good about that.
Loren Petrich
In article <6iqm0p$2a14$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>>Have Protestants & Catholics ever gotten along well?
>They usually get along pretty well in every place I ever lived. Places like
>northern Ireland are an exception.
Furthermore, that's generally not a religious thing but a
nationalistic thing -- a conflict between the pro-British and the
pro-Irish inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
splat
Loren Petrich wrote:
> Furthermore, that's generally not a religious thing but a
> nationalistic thing -- a conflict between the pro-British and the
> pro-Irish inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
Irish hatred of the British goes back to the potato famine, when
the British "landlords" shipped food out of the starving nation for
profit rather than feed the dying populace.
...splat
Tim Starr
In article <6iqm0p$2a14$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>Tim Starr wrote:
>
>>Have Protestants & Catholics ever gotten along well?
>
>They usually get along pretty well in every place I ever lived. Places like
>northern Ireland are an exception.
What an amazingly narrow historical perspective. Did Martin Luther get
along well with the Pope?
The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
same fundamental ideology. Sunni & Shi'ite Moslems may not get along very
well, either, but they're still Moslems. Democratic Socialists may not get
along very well with Revolutionary Communists, Trotskyists may not get along
along well with Leninists or Stalinists, Leninists may not get along well
with Maoists, & International Socialists may not get along well with National
Socialists - but none of these internal faction-fights changes the fact that
they're all still socialists.
>>>Would you put Helmut Schmidt in the same boat as Stalin or Breshnev as
>>>ideological compatriots.
>
>>Would you deny that both the Pope & Pat Robertson are Christians?
>
>Evading the question, eh?
No, making an analogy. What does Copi's INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC have to say
about argument by analogy?
--
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
Dan Clore
Tim Starr wrote:
> In article <6iqm0p$2a14$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >>Have Protestants & Catholics ever gotten along well?
> >They usually get along pretty well in every place I ever lived. Places like
> >northern Ireland are an exception.
> What an amazingly narrow historical perspective. Did Martin Luther get
> along well with the Pope?
> The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
> to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
> same fundamental ideology.
Then the "anarcho-capitalists" should not mind being lumped in with
self-proclaimed "state capitalists" such as Lenin and Castro. Their
difference is obviously only an internal schism within groups of
adherents to the same fundamental ideology. I'll remember that.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
Scott D. Erb
In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>>>Have Protestants & Catholics ever gotten along well?
>What an amazingly narrow historical perspective. Did Martin Luther get
>along well with the Pope?
You ask if protestants and Catholics have ever gotten along well. I grew up
protestant. I had many Catholic friends, as did my parents. My Grandfather
was a German Lutheran Minister and had many Catholic friends and even told me
the importance of tolerance when I was a young lad. I have never seen in my
every day life anything negative between Catholics and protestants. If you
have to look to the nationalism of Ireland or give examples from the 16th
century to find problems, you don't have much of a case.
>The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
>to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
>same fundamental ideology.
I still say you and Helmut Schmidt are closer in ideology than Helmut Schmidt
and Josef Stalin. You're playing typical rhetoric games, trying to put
everything...non-violent human rights focused Social Democrats, Stalin and
Hitler in the same camp. Sorry. That dog don't hunt.
>No, making an analogy. What does Copi's INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC have to say
>about argument by analogy?
I'm not sure about Copi, but argument by analogy can be one of the most
misleading forms of argument since bad analogies can be used to obfuscate.
BTW, I see you deleted my point about how your analogy of religion to ideology
seems to suggest that religion and ideology is similar by your own words.
That would make libertarianism, Randism, and your ideology something akin to a
religion.
If you accept your own argument, you must accept that you are a believer in a
faith.
Thank you for admitting that.
cheers, scott
Tim Starr
In article <35510D...@columbia-center.org>,
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Tim Starr wrote:
>> In article <6iqm0p$2a14$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>> >Tim Starr wrote:
>
>
>>>northern Ireland are an exception.
>
>>along well with the Pope?
>
>> to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
>> same fundamental ideology.
>
>self-proclaimed "state capitalists" such as Lenin and Castro.
Except that we're not statists, & they're not capitalists.
Tim Starr
In article <6ir7no$uo6$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>
>>along well with the Pope?
>
In reply to your question about whether Democratic Socialists have ever
gotten along well with Revolutionary Socialists, as if in-fighting amongst
different wings of the same ideological movements somehow meant that they
weren't part of the same ideological movements. I simply turned the question
back around on you, with an analogy to religion. The fact that Protestants
& Catholics fought the Wars of Religion against each other doesn't mean that
they aren't both Christians.
Then you tried to evade my point with an irrelevant diversion about the
religious background of some people you grew up with. Who gives a shit?
>>The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
>>to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
>>same fundamental ideology.
>
>I still say you and Helmut Schmidt are closer in ideology than Helmut Schmidt
>and Josef Stalin. You're playing typical rhetoric games, trying to put
>everything...non-violent human rights focused Social Democrats...
Who want the State to violently steal & otherwise infringe upon the human
right to privte property.
>>No, making an analogy. What does Copi's INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC have to say
>>about argument by analogy?
>
>I'm not sure about Copi...
You're not sure about it? Haven't you read it? After all, you did reccomend
it to me. Don't tell me you reccomend books you haven't read as authorities
on positions you take?
Dan Clore
Tim Starr wrote:
> In article <35510D...@columbia-center.org>,
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >> In article <6iqm0p$2a14$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
> >> Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
> >> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >> The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
> >> to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
> >> same fundamental ideology.
> >Then the "anarcho-capitalists" should not mind being lumped in with
> >self-proclaimed "state capitalists" such as Lenin and Castro.
> Except that we're not statists, & they're not capitalists.
Ahem. You were arguing that Nazis are socialists (species national
socialist) because they happened to call themselves that, and that
therefore their disagreement with any other sort of socialist is
secondary: "none of these internal faction-fights changes the fact that
they're all still socialists."
Now: even if you don't like it, Lenin and Castro were both perfectly
explicit that they were capitalists (species state capitalist).
Therefore, by your own logic, any disagreement between you and them is
obviously (as I said and Tim snipped) only an internal schism within
groups of adherents to the same fundamental ideology. By your own logic,
you "share the same fundamental ideology" with Lenin and Castro: none of
your internal faction-fights changes that fact.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
Tim Starr
In article <35515A...@columbia-center.org>,
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Tim Starr wrote:
>>In article <35510D...@columbia-center.org>,
>>Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>>Tim Starr wrote:
>>>>In article <6iqm0p$2a14$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>>>>Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>>>>>Tim Starr wrote:
>
>>>>The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
>>>>to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
>>>>same fundamental ideology.
>
>>>Then the "anarcho-capitalists" should not mind being lumped in with
>>>self-proclaimed "state capitalists" such as Lenin and Castro.
>
>>Except that we're not statists, & they're not capitalists.
>
>Ahem. You were arguing that Nazis are socialists (species national
Lie, I never argued anything of the kind. They were socialists because they
practiced socialism.
Dan Clore
Tim Starr wrote:
> >>>>The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
> >>>>to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
> >>>>same fundamental ideology.
> >
> >>>Then the "anarcho-capitalists" should not mind being lumped in with
> >>>self-proclaimed "state capitalists" such as Lenin and Castro.
> >
> >>Except that we're not statists, & they're not capitalists.
> >
> >Ahem. You were arguing that Nazis are socialists (species national
> >socialist) because they happened to call themselves that...
>
> Lie, I never argued anything of the kind. They were socialists because they
> practiced socialism.
Hmm, never? Here's the first thing I got doing a DejaNews search for
"nazi" and "socialist" with you as author:
[begin quoted message]
In article <6ilblh$22gs$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>>While I quite agree with your assessment of Professor Erb's apologia for
>>communist totalitarian dictatorship in the USSR,
>
>Note again Tim's style of personal attacks and lies. Given my political
>philosophy...
Socialism.
>it's clear that I am fundamentally opposed to the type of system that
>existed in the USSR...
The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
>and find it as immoral as that as existed in Nazi Germany.
National SOCIALIST Germany.
[end quoted message (sigfile snipped)]
Note that Tim Starr presents no argument whatsoever to prove that Nazi
Germany was socialist (or the USSR for that matter), other than that it
was *called* socialist.
Note was well that Tim has only made this accusation (blatantly lying
about his own past record in the process) in order to distract attention
away from the fact that both Lenin and Castro described themselves as
"state capitalists". And not only did they call themselves that, both
acted as capitalists with no small aplomb. Cf. that with the Nazis, who
*also* acted as capitalists with no small aplomb.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
ebmf
> Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> > Furthermore, that's generally not a religious thing but a
> > nationalistic thing -- a conflict between the pro-British and the
> > pro-Irish inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
The Irish Catholic (but anti-Pope) and English Protestant conflict is most
certainly religious in nature. There's more of a nationalistic flavor to
the battle now, now that Ireland has been allowed to elect their own, but
until recently the line was firmly drawn between Protestant and Catholic
lines. You cannot ignore the religious issues in Ireland any more than you
can ignore the religious issues in the Middle East.
If you want to talk Nationalistic let's talk about *Scotland* and England.
> Irish hatred of the British goes back to the potato famine, when
> the British "landlords" shipped food out of the starving nation for
> profit rather than feed the dying populace.
>
> ...splat
It goes back a lot futher than that, back to Cromwell and his "invasion"
of Ireland. That's when the Irish lost their right to self rule, and most
people lost everything, including the right to vote, or own land. The
"landlords" were there because of Cromwell, and they hated them long
before the potato BLIGHT. (A potato famine means that the potatos were
starving.) Starvation was just another abuse in a long. long line of
abuses.
Not a snipe, but a clarification.
Scott Erb
>Lie, I never argued anything of the kind. They were socialists because
>they
>practiced socialism.
He isn't lying, you are. Your only "evidence" that these were socialist
was their names. You posted the names (Union of Soviet SOCIALIST,
National SOCIALISM, etc.), and said nothing of the practices.
Geez, Tim, that was an especially transparent tactic on your part. You're
usually a little more clever than THAT! Admit you lied, Tim.
Billy Beck
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Tim Starr wrote:
>> Except that we're not statists, & they're not capitalists.
>
>Ahem. You were arguing that Nazis are socialists (species national
>socialist) because they happened to call themselves that...
*Wrong*. That's what *you* say the argument is, but it's not the
argument. Nazis were (are) socialists because of the collective
premises of their ethics and subsequent politics. It has nothing to
do with the label.
>Now: even if you don't like it, Lenin and Castro were both perfectly
>explicit that they were capitalists (species state capitalist).
A thing is what it *is*, pal, identified in its *essential*
characteristics, no matter what label is stuck on it. Further, if
you're going to post this sort of thing (they were "perfectly
explicit"), you'd do well to post a citation or two from them which
makes the point.
>Therefore, by your own logic, any disagreement between you and them is
>obviously (as I said and Tim snipped) only an internal schism within
>groups of adherents to the same fundamental ideology. By your own logic,
>you "share the same fundamental ideology" with Lenin and Castro...
*Wrong*. The *fundamentals* are *radically* (in the full
philosophical usage) different.
Billy
VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
Billy Beck
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Note that Tim Starr presents no argument whatsoever to prove that Nazi
>Germany was socialist (or the USSR for that matter), other than that it
>was *called* socialist.
Perhaps it's because he assumes a certain familiarity with the
subject matter in his readers. How 'bout you? You know the
historical territory?
>Note was well that Tim has only made this accusation (blatantly lying
>about his own past record in the process) in order to distract attention
>away from the fact that both Lenin and Castro described themselves as
>"state capitalists".
*Cite*, please. And, if you manage to cough one up, we'll be
happy to analyze it, root, branch, premise and implication.
>And not only did they call themselves that, both
>acted as capitalists with no small aplomb. Cf. that with the Nazis, who
>*also* acted as capitalists with no small aplomb.
(hah!) Oh, yeah: right off the bat, I noticed the similiarities
between the Four-Year Plan of 1936 and the Wright Bros.
Scott Erb
In article <3551e327...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
says...
>
>
>Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
>>Tim Starr wrote:
>
>>> Except that we're not statists, & they're not capitalists.
>>
>>Ahem. You were arguing that Nazis are socialists (species national
>>socialist) because they happened to call themselves that...
>
> *Wrong*. That's what *you* say the argument is, but it's not the
>argument. Nazis were (are) socialists because of the collective
>premises of their ethics and subsequent politics.
Besides the fact, Billy, you're wrong in your assertion on ideology, you're
putting arguments in Tim's mouth. But Tim only used the names or
self-created labels to try to make his point. Since he seems to like to
parse out other people's words and try to use any unclear point as a take off
to accuse others of lying, the fact he makes such a claim and then denies it
makes him fair game.
Oh, and Billy, if you want to rise up from your self-imposed ignorance and
learn something about political ideologies, check out:
"Political Ideologies," by Leon Baradat. An easier intro is a book by the
same name by Funderburk and Thobaben. You can use cites from those books to
go into details with more depth if you wish. Next semester (starting in late
August) you can also look at the lecture notes I'll be posting for
Comparative Politics (you can get their via my homepage). Our first unit is
on ideology, starting with liberalism and conservativism, then expanding to
Communism/Socialism, Fascism, Authoritarianism, Feminism, and Social
Democracy. We look at what differentiates these ideologies and where they
are and are not similar. In fact, if you would read the book with the
lecture notes, you might learn alot. And if you have any arguments or things
you think I should bring up in class on those issues, I'll take your
suggestions into account.
cheers, scott
Tim Starr
In article <355169...@columbia-center.org>,
>> >>>>to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
>> >>>>same fundamental ideology.
>> >
>> >>>Then the "anarcho-capitalists" should not mind being lumped in with
>> >>>self-proclaimed "state capitalists" such as Lenin and Castro.
>> >
>> >
>> >Ahem. You were arguing that Nazis are socialists (species national
>> >socialist) because they happened to call themselves that...
>>
>> practiced socialism.
>
No, never. You're lying, as below:
>Here's the first thing I got doing a DejaNews search for
>"nazi" and "socialist" with you as author:
>
>[begin quoted message]
>In article <6ilblh$22gs$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>>While I quite agree with your assessment of Professor Erb's apologia for
>>>communist totalitarian dictatorship in the USSR,
>>
>>Note again Tim's style of personal attacks and lies. Given my political
>>philosophy...
>
>Socialism.
>
>>it's clear that I am fundamentally opposed to the type of system that
>>existed in the USSR...
>
>The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
>
>>and find it as immoral as that as existed in Nazi Germany.
>
>National SOCIALIST Germany.
>
>[end quoted message (sigfile snipped)]
>
>Note that Tim Starr presents no argument whatsoever to prove that Nazi
>Germany was socialist (or the USSR for that matter)...
Precisely. No argument to prove that either were socialist at all, just an
identification of them as such.
>other than that it was *called* socialist.
Where, exactly, did I present the argument that they were socialist simply
because they called themselves socialist? I didn't even imply any such
thing, I just identified them as such.
Billy Beck
tenuretwit:
>And if you have any arguments or things you think I should bring
>up in class on those issues, I'll take your suggestions into account.
I think you should issue rubber suits and protective goggles to
all your students and then blow your fucking head off with a .38 Colt
at the top of your very first lecture.
Dan Clore
[Apparently we will change the subject header every time we post to the
thread]
Tim Starr wrote:
> In article <355169...@columbia-center.org>,
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >Tim Starr wrote:
> >
> >> >>>>The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
> >> >>>>to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
> >> >>>>same fundamental ideology.
> >> >
> >> >>>Then the "anarcho-capitalists" should not mind being lumped in with
> >> >>>self-proclaimed "state capitalists" such as Lenin and Castro.
> >> >
> >> >>Except that we're not statists, & they're not capitalists.
> >> >
> >> >Ahem. You were arguing that Nazis are socialists (species national
> >> >socialist) because they happened to call themselves that...
> >>
> >> Lie, I never argued anything of the kind. They were socialists because they
> >> practiced socialism.
> >
> >Hmm, never?
>
> No, never. You're lying, as below:
Okay then, let's see:
Fair enough. I retract my claim: you never made any argument that they
were socialist. You merely asserted this to be the case, as if that
assertion alone were enough to establish it as fact. Odd that you now
claim that this post of yours was completely vacuous in content --
surely everyone already knew what USSR and Nazi are shortened forms of?
In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists, and that any disagreement
between them and you is (in your own terms) only an internal schism
within groups of adherents to the same fundamental ideology.
Dan Clore
> >Note was well that Tim has only made this accusation (blatantly lying
> >about his own past record in the process) in order to distract attention
> >away from the fact that both Lenin and Castro described themselves as
> >"state capitalists".
> *Cite*, please. And, if you manage to cough one up, we'll be
> happy to analyze it, root, branch, premise and implication.
Lenin's well-known description of his system is cited here:
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/guest/radical/ES-BOLSH.HTM
As to Fidel (this was in alt.politics.socialism.trotsky a while back):
From an interview with Castro by Mexican capitalists (adapted from
_Proceso_, a Mexican left-wing weekly, December 4 [1988]; noted and
translated by Sam Farber):
Q: "What guarantees do you have that Cuba will not expropriate our
businesses?"
A: "Well, what guarantees did you have in Mexico to prevent the
expropriation of oil, and what guarantees did you have to prevent the
expropriation of the banks?
"The guarantee that Cuba offers is that it is a strong country with a
strong government. We are interested in the development of industry and
tourism. We will open up and become 50% partners. We will do things
well.
We will not charge taxes for profits. Besides, you'll have a simpler and
more attractive tax system than the Mexican."
Q: "Why don't you allow Cubans to invest in their own country?"
A: "Well, that would mean changing the system. We are capitalists, but
state capitalists. We are not private capitalists. For now, we are not
interested in changing the system, but we do want you to come and
invest..."
Rob Robertson
Billy Beck wrote:
>
> tenuretwit:
>
> >And if you have any arguments or things you think I should bring
> >up in class on those issues, I'll take your suggestions into account.
>
> I think you should issue rubber suits and protective goggles to
> all your students and then blow your fucking head off with a .38 Colt
> at the top of your very first lecture.
Rubber suits? Protective goggles? But Billy, Scott already knows that
that would be a waste of money, because there wouldn't *be* any blood
or tissue sprayed all over the blackboard and his students if he ever
did such a thing, ain't that right, Scott?
He'll be found laying on his desk, legs straight, arms by his sides,
no blood to be found, and probably no fingerprints, either. And if
any conspirowhackoloons ever argue against suicide, I'll argue
vigorously against it for the sake of poor dead Scott's memory. Well,
actually I'll just repost Erb's articles about Foster and change the
name.
> Billy
>
> VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
> http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html
_
Rob
Billy Beck
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
>> >Note was well that Tim has only made this accusation (blatantly lying
>> >about his own past record in the process) in order to distract attention
>> >away from the fact that both Lenin and Castro described themselves as
>> >"state capitalists".
>
>> *Cite*, please. And, if you manage to cough one up, we'll be
>> happy to analyze it, root, branch, premise and implication.
>
>Lenin's well-known description of his system is cited here:
>http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/guest/radical/ES-BOLSH.HTM
*Hilarious*! Hey, everybody: go dig this -
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/guest/radical/LINKS.HTM
- whole site for a fairly good picture of the left doing its best
to ditch the rancid albatross of the record of socialism in this
century.
>As to Fidel...
All he has to do is...
>"We are capitalists...
...*say* it, and idiots like you believe it. *And*, you do it
*after* you come around here arguing that the Nazis weren't really
socialists just because they called themselves socialists.
You guise never disappoint.
Dan Clore
Billy Beck wrote:
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >Billy Beck wrote:
> >> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >> >Note was well that Tim has only made this accusation (blatantly lying
> >> >about his own past record in the process) in order to distract attention
> >> >away from the fact that both Lenin and Castro described themselves as
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> >"state capitalists".
> >> *Cite*, please. And, if you manage to cough one up, we'll be
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> happy to analyze it, root, branch, premise and implication.
> >Lenin's well-known description of his system is cited here:
> >http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/guest/radical/ES-BOLSH.HTM
>
> *Hilarious*! Hey, everybody: go dig this -
>
> http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/guest/radical/LINKS.HTM
>
> - whole site for a fairly good picture of the left doing its best
> to ditch the rancid albatross of the record of socialism in this
> century.
The record of state capitalism -- unless of course you literally believe
the proposition:
Stalin (or any other dictator) = the workers themselves
It's been clear to leftists that this was Newspeak since the beginning
(not that you would recognize any of their names, since your knowledge
of "leftism" is apparently confined to a few dictators). That the
right-wingers cling to Stalinist orthodoxy is touching, but makes it
rather difficult to take them seriously, especially when it's something
so self-evidently false.
> >As to Fidel...
>
> All he has to do is...
>
> >"We are capitalists...
>
> ...*say* it, and idiots like you believe it. *And*, you do it
> *after* you come around here arguing that the Nazis weren't really
> socialists just because they called themselves socialists.
You are the idiot who asked for a citation from Castro calling himself a
capitalist. You got it. Now why don't you "analyze it, root, branch,
premise and implication" like you said you'd be "happy" to do? Or
perhaps you're just playing moronic games, asking for one thing and then
suddenly deciding that it isn't good enough once you've gotten it?
Either way, you lose the argument, so it's no skin off my teeth.
Scott D. Erb
In article <35520d7a...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com says...
> I think you should issue rubber suits and protective goggles to
>all your students and then blow your fucking head off with a .38 Colt
>at the top of your very first lecture.
And I think you should have a worse fate, condemned to live the rest of your
life as a bitter loser roadie, who believes in conspiracy theories, thinks
he's not free and his failure is caused by "them" (especially the government)
and who is unable to have an honest disagreement with someone without getting
angry and abusive.
Nah, I wouldn't really wish such a sad life on anyone.
Scott D. Erb
In article <35521B...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
>
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> I think you should issue rubber suits and protective goggles to
>> all your students and then blow your fucking head off with a .38 Colt
>> at the top of your very first lecture.
> He'll be found laying on his desk, legs straight, arms by his sides
See folks, what kind of perverts these guys are!
Scratch them a bit, say something they don't like (and all I did was invite
them to read some books and visit my website to find out about political
ideology) and their minds start fantasizing about death, violence, gore...
Their words speak for themselves.
Thanks, Billy and Rob, for demonstrating how your minds work ;)
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
>Precisely. No argument to prove that either were socialist at all, just an
>identification of them as such.
Gee, Tim gets caught in a lie, and now he says, "well, it wasn't an argument,
it was an assertion." Talk about bad rhetorical bluster to hide his failure!
Ah well, by their fruits ye shall know them.
Billy Beck
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>You are the idiot who asked for a citation from Castro calling himself a
>capitalist. You got it.
Tell me something: why is it that, in the "Beyond Kronstadt"
article, the words "state capitalism" are set off with quotes?
Is the euphemism *really* that self-conscious of the
contradiction?
Who wrote that article?
I've got your "root, branch, premise & implication", but you're
not going to like it. You won't even *understand* it. (Bet for
inlookers: as soon as I start this, this person willl reach for his
dictionary, and his definition of "capitalism" won't go any further
than that.)
"At heart, the debate between the collectivist and the
individualist is a *metaphysical* debate." (Tibor Machan)
>Now why don't you "analyze it, root, branch, premise and implication"
>like you said you'd be "happy" to do?
Why don't you take your time?
It will come to you.
Tim Starr
In article <6iscbf$lno$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>>they practiced socialism.
>
Nope. I never argued that they were socialist because they called themselves
socialists. He lied, & now you're lying, too, just to conduct your very own
personal vendetta against me because you hold a grudge against me for showing
you up for the liar you are:
Scott Erb on Somalia:
4/9/98:
Starr: "Don't forget the Italian Socialist Party, which made Somalia the
proving ground for all their socialist development schemes."
Erb: "No, the US and the Soviets are what screwed up the area. Trying to
blame Italy is as bizarre as trying to claim Koresh was just a victim."
- Message-ID <6gjudf$750$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
4/18/98:
Starr: "Oh, BTW, remember your claim that I was wrong when I blamed the
Italian Socialist Party for the problems of Somalia? Read and weep:"
Erb: "No, I don't recall saying you were wrong on that particular issue,
though I do remember noting that the US and USSR ruined the recent situation
in Somalia.
"Given your penchant to lie about my claims, it might be nice if you post the
claim you are referring too."
- Message-ID: <6h96q5$22c8$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
4/28/98:
Starr: "[Erb] denies that he ever denied that the Italian Socialist Party
bore any responsibility for the civil war of the Barre regime, & tries to
redefine his original claim to weasel out of his mistake."
Erb: "I never even mentioned the Barre regime, let allowed denied any party
was involved (how could I if I didn't mention it). Geez, your lies are
getting more weird by the post!
"...
"I guess that if the facts don't jive with your religious faith in your
ideology, you deny the facts with lies.
"I find that disgusting, immoral, and dishonest.
"Now, stop dealing with trivialities. I'm sure the Italian socialists did
nasty things that contributed to Somalia's decline."
- Message-ID: <6i3dak$fao$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
Charles Mott
On 8 May 1998, Scott D. Erb wrote:
> Tim the sophist wrote:
>
> >I never argued that Nazi Germany or the USSR were socialist simply because
> >they sad they were in their names. I merely pointed out that they announced
> >their socialism to the world in the names of their political organizations.
>
> Tim, if you think that Nazi Germany was socialist, you are simply ignorant.
>
> Check out this site:
> http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-hitler.htm?id=6587277
>
> Also check out the book "Political Ideologies" by Leon Baradat, or a book by
> the same title by Funderburk and Thobaben. You can also check out my lectures
> online next fall, unit one of comparative politics.
Just curious, but what is your opinion of Christopher Hitchens? How about
George Orwell? Both of these main are/were socialists.
Oh, and what was Alger Hiss, a socialist or communist?
Tim Starr
In article <6itch8$dmk$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>>identification of them as such.
>
I never argued that Nazi Germany or the USSR were socialist simply because
they sad they were in their names. I merely pointed out that they announced
their socialism to the world in the names of their political organizations.
--
Dan Clore
> >You are the idiot who asked for a citation from Castro calling himself a
> >capitalist. You got it.
> Tell me something: why is it that, in the "Beyond Kronstadt"
> article, the words "state capitalism" are set off with quotes?
Because the author is quoting Lenin, just as someone might say "Carl
Jung's theory involves the 'collective unconscious'" -- are you really
that unaware of what simply quotation marks mean?
> Who wrote that article?
I don't know. What difference does it make? If you care, e-mail the
person who keeps it on his website and ask him.
> I've got your "root, branch, premise & implication", but you're
> not going to like it. You won't even *understand* it. (Bet for
> inlookers: as soon as I start this, this person willl reach for his
> dictionary, and his definition of "capitalism" won't go any further
> than that.)
My definition of "capitalism" is the same as that of the people who
coined the term. Do you know who that is? (Bet for inlookers: this
individual's definition of "capitalism" is an "unknown ideal" -- the
known real capitalism being something that he would prefer not to
acknowledge.)
> >Now why don't you "analyze it, root, branch, premise and implication"
> >like you said you'd be "happy" to do?
> Why don't you take your time?
> It will come to you.
In other words, you have no argument to offer. Come on with this
analysis you claimed you would be so happy to make.
Billy Beck
You *know* what we're talking about. You know *why* we're doing
it. And you *know* what you're mis-representing here. *That's* why
you've earned my ever-lasting *contempt*, Scott Erb: you're an
*habitual* liar: you never stop, and your insipid little smilies do
nothing to mitigate the *fact* of what you are.
I will *never* extend the least courtesy to people like you.
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>In article <35520d7a...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com says...
>
>> I think you should issue rubber suits and protective goggles to
>>all your students and then blow your fucking head off with a .38 Colt
>>at the top of your very first lecture.
>
>And I think you should have a worse fate, condemned to live the rest of your
>life as a bitter loser roadie...
I'll be thinking about you next month, pal. (BTW: just exactly
how much does an assistant professor earn in five weeks?) Guess what:
I'm going to come home to do nothing with the month afterward but
learn how to fly. That's all I'm going to do, all day long, every
day, and I'm going to pay for it up-front. Believe me: while I'm
horsing Mrs. Anderson's Citabria around, I won't be thinking about
*you*. I'll be suffering my "loser" fate.
Guess what else: I'm going come home with every single dime of
my contract price, with nary a penny chisled off to pay for any of
your bullshit socialist schemes, and there's nothing you can do about
it.
Loser.
Scott D. Erb
Tim the sophist wrote:
>I never argued that Nazi Germany or the USSR were socialist simply because
>they sad they were in their names. I merely pointed out that they announced
>their socialism to the world in the names of their political organizations.
Tim, if you think that Nazi Germany was socialist, you are simply ignorant.
Check out this site:
http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-hitler.htm?id=6587277
Also check out the book "Political Ideologies" by Leon Baradat, or a book by
the same title by Funderburk and Thobaben. You can also check out my lectures
online next fall, unit one of comparative politics.
If you want to keep spouting such obviously wrong and ignorant BS, you're not
worth my time.
Billy Beck
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> >You are the idiot who asked for a citation from Castro calling himself a
>> >capitalist. You got it.
>
>> Tell me something: why is it that, in the "Beyond Kronstadt"
>> article, the words "state capitalism" are set off with quotes?
>
>Because the author is quoting Lenin, just as someone might say "Carl
>Jung's theory involves the 'collective unconscious'" -- are you really
>that unaware of what simply quotation marks mean?
(hoot) *ooooohh*! you really *scare* me!
>> Who wrote that article?
>
>I don't know. What difference does it make?
For one thing, the no reference to the original text is noted,
and it might be interesting to go look at what Lenin meant with the
phrase. And that would be *cool* because the reference itself in
"Beyond Kronstadt" leaves a hell of a lot of weasel-room around the
definition. But, nooooo, all we get is this "state capitalism" as
some kinda political prelude to the full opus of "communism".
Ya know? (You saw that, right?)
Annnnd, since it was your cite, the whole blurry trail back to
your earlier comparison to anarcho-capitalism really dissipates to
clear gas.
That's what difference it makes. For instance.
>> I've got your "root, branch, premise & implication", but you're
>> not going to like it. You won't even *understand* it. (Bet for
>> inlookers: as soon as I start this, this person willl reach for his
>> dictionary, and his definition of "capitalism" won't go any further
>> than that.)
>
>My definition of "capitalism" is the same as that of the people who
>coined the term. Do you know who that is?
Yeah. You. Me. Marx. Proudhon. Emma Goldman. Carl Snyder.
Jane Fonda. Arkes. Frank Lloyd Wright. Samuelson. Galbraith.
Malcom X.
Get it? Everybody...
>Bet for inlookers: this individual's definition of "capitalism" is an
>"unknown ideal" --
...has "coined the term."
The point is...
>...the known real capitalism being something that he would prefer not to
>acknowledge.)
...what do you think it is?
>> It will come to you.
Dan Clore
> >> >You are the idiot who asked for a citation from Castro calling himself a
> >> >capitalist. You got it.
> >
> >> Tell me something: why is it that, in the "Beyond Kronstadt"
> >> article, the words "state capitalism" are set off with quotes?
> >
> >Because the author is quoting Lenin, just as someone might say "Carl
> >Jung's theory involves the 'collective unconscious'" -- are you really
> >that unaware of what simply quotation marks mean?
>
> (hoot) *ooooohh*! you really *scare* me!
Okay: you *don't* know what simple quotation marks mean. Fair enough.
> >> Who wrote that article?
> >
> >I don't know. What difference does it make?
>
> For one thing, the no reference to the original text is noted,
> and it might be interesting to go look at what Lenin meant with the
> phrase. And that would be *cool* because the reference itself in
> "Beyond Kronstadt" leaves a hell of a lot of weasel-room around the
> definition. But, nooooo, all we get is this "state capitalism" as
> some kinda political prelude to the full opus of "communism".
>
> Ya know? (You saw that, right?)
>
> Annnnd, since it was your cite, the whole blurry trail back to
> your earlier comparison to anarcho-capitalism really dissipates to
> clear gas.
>
> That's what difference it makes. For instance.
Of course, if you had actually read the article, you would have noticed
another place where he gives this quotation: ""socialism is merely
state-capitalist monopoly _which is made to serve the interests of the
whole people_ and has to that extent _ceased_ to be capitalist
monopoly." Followed by a citation from Lenin's Collected Works.
Still waiting for you to "analyze it, root, branch, premise and
implication" like you said you'd be "happy" to do. Apparently this task
is too difficult for you.
Tim Starr
In article <6itrig$1th2$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>
>>I never argued that Nazi Germany or the USSR were socialist simply because
>>they sad they were in their names. I merely pointed out that they announced
>>their socialism to the world in the names of their political organizations.
>
>Tim, if you think that Nazi Germany was socialist, you are simply ignorant.
If you think Nazi Germany wasn't socialist, then you need to go watch Leni
Riefenstahl's TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, & pay close attention to Goebbels' speeches
& the speeches to the Hitler Youth.
Or, if you want a more scholarly reference, instead of a primary source, then
you can read Hayek's THE ROAD TO SERFDOM.
>Check out this site:
>http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-hitler.htm?id=6587277
Kangas? Don't make me laugh! He's better at doing his homework than you,
but he still makes big fat whopping mistakes, like his denial that the Fed
expanded the money supply during the 1920s.
In the particular document you point to above, his analysis of individualism
vs. collectivism is completely flawed, equivocating between those who join
groups because they believe that the groups serve their individual purposes
& those who join them because they believe that their individual purpose is
to serve the group. The latter is the socialist position, whether they be
National or International Socialists. National Socialists believe that the
individual's purpose is to serve the Nation, International Socialists believe
that the individual's purpose is to serve some international body, such as
the workers of the world.
His claim that Hitler was a capitalist is also flawed. All he does it show
that Hitler was anti-Marxist, but being anti-Marxist doesn't make one pro-
capitalist. The claim that anti-communism equals pro-capitalism is one of
the worst cases of commies believing their own propaganda, & duping many of
their fellow travelers as well.
When socialists like Mussolini first broke with the International Socialist
movement, they were attacked by those who remained in the movement as being
pro-capitalist. They weren't, they were national syndicalists. But many of
them believed that national syndicalism was the same thing as capitalism,
because it was't international syndicalism.
Later, when the national syndicalists were defeated in WWII & their atrocities
made public, it became convenient to reverse this charge, to accuse those
who defended capitalism of being defenders of national syndicalism & thus in
favor of the sort of regimes that committed the atrocities of the national
syndicalists.
The fact that they were national syndicalists also belies Kangas' claim that
the Nazis favored competition over co-operation. They didn't support any
sort of economic competition at all, they cartelized the German economy,
with each industry in its own corporative, ultimately under the command of
the State. The quotes that Kangas uses to try to prove that competition was
preferred over co-operation by the Nazis are taken out of context. The only
sort of competition preferred by the Nazis was that between Nations, which was
completely consistent with their National Socialism. They didn't support
competition within Nations, either in politics or economics.
As for your sources, if they lie like you then they aren't worth my time.
As for my "obviously wrong" claims not being worth your time, does that mean
that you're going to shut up & stop lying (redundancy) now?
Dan Clore
Tim Starr wrote:
> In article <6itrig$1th2$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
> >Check out this site:
> >http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-hitler.htm?id=6587277
> Kangas? Don't make me laugh! He's better at doing his homework than you,
> but he still makes big fat whopping mistakes, like his denial that the Fed
> expanded the money supply during the 1920s.
> In the particular document you point to above, his analysis of individualism
> vs. collectivism is completely flawed, equivocating between those who join
> groups because they believe that the groups serve their individual purposes
> & those who join them because they believe that their individual purpose is
> to serve the group. The latter is the socialist position, whether they be
> National or International Socialists. National Socialists believe that the
> individual's purpose is to serve the Nation, International Socialists believe
> that the individual's purpose is to serve some international body, such as
> the workers of the world.
What a remarkable job you've done clearing that up for us, Tim! -- I
never realized it before, but not only am *I* not a socialist, I don't
even *know* any!
Tim Starr
In article <355213...@columbia-center.org>,
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>[Apparently we will change the subject header every time we post to the
>thread]
>
>> In article <355169...@columbia-center.org>,
>> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> >Tim Starr wrote:
>> >
>> >> >>>>The point you're evading is that internal schisms within groups of adherents
>> >> >>>>to certain ideologies doesn't change the fact that they still share the
>> >> >>>>same fundamental ideology.
>> >> >
>> >> >>>Then the "anarcho-capitalists" should not mind being lumped in with
>> >> >>>self-proclaimed "state capitalists" such as Lenin and Castro.
>> >> >
>> >> >>Except that we're not statists, & they're not capitalists.
>> >> >
>> >> >Ahem. You were arguing that Nazis are socialists (species national
>> >> >socialist) because they happened to call themselves that...
>> >>
>> >> practiced socialism.
>> >
>>
>> No, never. You're lying, as below:
>
>Okay then, let's see:
>
>> >Here's the first thing I got doing a DejaNews search for
>> >"nazi" and "socialist" with you as author:
>> >
>> >[begin quoted message]
>> >In article <6ilblh$22gs$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>> >>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>> >>
>> >>>communist totalitarian dictatorship in the USSR,
>> >>
>> >>Note again Tim's style of personal attacks and lies. Given my political
>> >>philosophy...
>> >
>> >Socialism.
>> >
>> >>it's clear that I am fundamentally opposed to the type of system that
>> >>existed in the USSR...
>> >
>> >The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.
>> >
>> >>and find it as immoral as that as existed in Nazi Germany.
>> >
>> >National SOCIALIST Germany.
>> >
>> >[end quoted message (sigfile snipped)]
>> >
>> >Note that Tim Starr presents no argument whatsoever to prove that Nazi
>> >Germany was socialist (or the USSR for that matter)...
>
>> identification of them as such.
>
>
>> Where, exactly, did I present the argument that they were socialist simply
>> because they called themselves socialist? I didn't even imply any such
>> thing, I just identified them as such.
>
>Fair enough. I retract my claim: you never made any argument that they
>were socialist.
Thank you for admitting your lie. Too bad you can't be bothered to be
polite enough to apologize for it.
[snip]
>In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
>that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists...
Oh? Since when did they support private ownership of the means of
production? Looks to me like they supported State ownership of the means
of production, with the State acting as trustee for the people. Lenin was
inspired by German War Socialism during WWI to try the same thing in Russia
after the Bolshevik Counter-Revolution.
Tim Starr
In article <3552B7...@columbia-center.org>,
>> Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>
>> >Check out this site:
>> >http://www.scruz.net/~kangaroo/L-hitler.htm?id=6587277
>
>> Kangas? Don't make me laugh! He's better at doing his homework than you,
>> but he still makes big fat whopping mistakes, like his denial that the Fed
>> expanded the money supply during the 1920s.
>
>>In the particular document you point to above, his analysis of individualism
>>vs. collectivism is completely flawed, equivocating between those who join
>>groups because they believe that the groups serve their individual purposes
>>& those who join them because they believe that their individual purpose is
>>to serve the group. The latter is the socialist position, whether they be
>>National or International Socialists. National Socialists believe that the
>>individual's purpose is to serve the Nation, International Socialists believe
>>that the individual's purpose is to serve some international body, such as
>>the workers of the world.
>
>What a remarkable job you've done clearing that up for us, Tim! -- I
>never realized it before, but not only am *I* not a socialist, I don't
>even *know* any!
Good, the less of them there are in the world the better. Now, if you'd
just abandon all the ideological vestiges they left behind...
Dan Clore
Apparently Tim Starr cannot be pleased. I posted him making an argument
he had just denied that he had made; he responded that he was *not*
making an argument, just a bald, unsupported assertion (of something
everyone already knows, too). Out of kindness I retracted my claim,
since this is just as pathetic anyway. Now I've supposedly "admitted"
that I lied. How pathetic can this individual get?
> > Fair enough. I retract my claim: you never made any argument that they
> > were socialist. You merely asserted this to be the case, as if that
> > assertion alone were enough to establish it as fact. Odd that you now
> > claim that this post of yours was completely vacuous in content --
> > surely everyone already knew what USSR and Nazi are shortened forms of?
> Thank you for admitting your lie. Too bad you can't be bothered to be
> polite enough to apologize for it.
No lie, no apology necessary. Since you're now taking advantage of my
kindness in letting you re-write what you had said so that it was (as I
pointed out and you snipped -- snippage restored) completely vacuous and
void of any content, I retract my retraction: you were lying, plain and
simple. Don't worry: I won't be expecting any apologies from you.
> >In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
> >that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists...
> Oh? Since when did they support private ownership of the means of
> production?
I never said they supported private ownership of the means of production
-- I said they were capitalists: STATE capitalists. Is this concept too
difficult for you? Maybe we'd better take it slow: try to tell me what
you think the term "state capitalist" means and we can take it from
there.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
Billy Beck
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> >In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
>> >that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists...
>
>> Oh? Since when did they support private ownership of the means of
>> production?
>
>I never said they supported private ownership of the means of production
>-- I said they were capitalists: STATE capitalists. Is this concept too
>difficult for you?
(vigorous nod)
> Maybe we'd better take it slow: try to tell me what
>you think the term "state capitalist" means and we can take it from
>there.
Well, you see, nobody here ever heard of anything so ridiculous.
(It strikes me as something kinda like, "puppy kitty" or "communal
ownership".) I don't know how you can expect us to to tell you what
it means. *You* brought the concept around here. You oughta be able
to explain it.
Billy Beck
Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>Billy Beck wrote:
>> >> >You are the idiot who asked for a citation from Castro calling himself a
>> >> >capitalist. You got it.
>> >
>> >> Tell me something: why is it that, in the "Beyond Kronstadt"
>> >> article, the words "state capitalism" are set off with quotes?
>> >
>> >Because the author is quoting Lenin, just as someone might say "Carl
>> >Jung's theory involves the 'collective unconscious'" -- are you really
>> >that unaware of what simply quotation marks mean?
>>
>> (hoot) *ooooohh*! you really *scare* me!
>
>Okay: you *don't* know what simple quotation marks mean. Fair enough.
(And you're so *persistently* scary, too!)
>> >> Who wrote that article?
>> >
>> >I don't know. What difference does it make?
>>
>> For one thing, the no reference to the original text is noted,
>> and it might be interesting to go look at what Lenin meant with the
>> phrase. And that would be *cool* because the reference itself in
>> "Beyond Kronstadt" leaves a hell of a lot of weasel-room around the
>> definition. But, nooooo, all we get is this "state capitalism" as
>> some kinda political prelude to the full opus of "communism".
>>
>> Ya know? (You saw that, right?)
>>
>> Annnnd, since it was your cite, the whole blurry trail back to
>> your earlier comparison to anarcho-capitalism really dissipates to
>> clear gas.
>>
>> That's what difference it makes. For instance.
>
>Of course, if you had actually read the article, you would have noticed
>another place where he gives this quotation: ""socialism is merely
>state-capitalist monopoly _which is made to serve the interests of the
>whole people_ and has to that extent _ceased_ to be capitalist
>monopoly." Followed by a citation from Lenin's Collected Works.
I read the article, Dan. It's the same old *weasel shit*. The
"citation" from Lenin's Collected Works (vols. 25 & 26) does nothing
to explicate this *bullshit* anti-concept of "state capitalism", so
your weasel-room remains intact, which is exactly the way you want it:
that way, you get to come around here comparing anything and
everything to your "state capitalism" and saying it's all the same.
That's why you will *not* define anything according to its essential
characteristic: if you can define everything as similar, then you hope
you can sell people on the prospect that it doesn't really matter
whether they own their property or the "state" does, which is exactly
why you drew the comparison to Tim's rational anarchist model.
Ain't nothin' like appropriating something as your very own.
>Still waiting for you to "analyze it, root, branch, premise and
>implication" like you said you'd be "happy" to do. Apparently this task
>is too difficult for you.
Think so? Good deal, weasel-boy.
Scott Erb
In article <3553057f...@news.mindspring.com>, wj...@mindspring.com
says...
>
>
>Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>> Maybe we'd better take it slow: try to tell me what
>>you think the term "state capitalist" means and we can take it from
>>there.
>
> Well, you see, nobody here ever heard of anything so ridiculous.
No, Billy, you just don't really know your stuff here in these debates.
In any event, state capitalism of a sort is also the strategy used by the
NICs (Newly Industrializing Countries) of Asia to try to develop and
industrialize quickly.
Capitalism is not inherently anti-statist. Some versions of capitalist
thought are (such as your style of anarcho-capitalism, and some kinds of
libertarian capitalism), but yours is not the only view on capitalism,
believe it or not!
cheers, scott
Rob Robertson
Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
> In article <35521B...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> >
> >Billy Beck wrote:
>
> >> all your students and then blow your fucking head off with a .38 Colt
> >> at the top of your very first lecture.
> > Rubber suits? Protective goggles? But Billy, Scott already knows that
> > that would be a waste of money, because there wouldn't *be* any blood
> > or tissue sprayed all over the blackboard and his students if he ever
> > did such a thing, ain't that right, Scott?
> >
> > He'll be found laying on his desk, legs straight, arms by his sides
> > no blood to be found, and probably no fingerprints, either. And if
> > any conspirowhackoloons ever argue against suicide, I'll argue
> > vigorously against it for the sake of poor dead Scott's memory. Well,
> > actually I'll just repost Erb's articles about Foster and change the
> > name.
> See folks, what kind of perverts these guys are!
[Psssst. Scott. It's swapping you for Vince Foster so that you might
see things in a new light. Guess it didn't work.]
> Scratch them a bit, say something they don't like (and all I did was invite
> them to read some books and visit my website to find out about political
> ideology) and their minds start fantasizing about death, violence, gore...
>
> Their words speak for themselves.
>
> Thanks, Billy and Rob, for demonstrating how your minds work ;)
You're quite welcome, Scott.
Of course, you *do* understand the point of that was to show that it's
quite easy to be smiley and cheerful about issues that don't immediately
affect you, like the death of the deputy White House Counsel. He wasn't
a friend of yours, and he was easily replaced, so why invest any emotional
stock in *that* issue, right?
You disconnect meaning from words, and you disconnect yourself from the
events around you because they don't affect you directly. Your arguments
in the Vince Foster case highlight this insular outlook of yours, Scott.
When Billy says, "It should have been *you* in the park", that is meant
to bring the reality of the situation directly into your personal world,
and when I say that I would take up your arguments against anyone saying
that the strange death of Scott Erb makes no sense, that also is meant to
change the perspective of the case to a more personal level.
But then again, you probably already know this, and want to present it
as something entirely different, which is just so,... Erbian of you.
> cheers, scott
ta ta,
Rob Robertson
Scott Erb
In article <35531F...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> Of course, you *do* understand the point of that was to show that it's
>quite easy to be smiley and cheerful about issues that don't immediately
>affect you, like the death of the deputy White House Counsel. He wasn't
>a friend of yours, and he was easily replaced, so why invest any emotional
>stock in *that* issue, right?
Well, let's be consistent. Let's get emotional about every death then.
Actually, the difference of opinion is not that Foster's suicide isn't sad,
but that you and Billy, and a very tiny group of conspiracy theories, just
don't believe what all the experts say. That's fine. You seem to think that
not believing you is akin to what you write above. That's silly.
> You disconnect meaning from words, and you disconnect yourself from the
And you make jokes about people who you are responding to dying. Billy even
tells people to "go and die." Yet that doens't seem to bother you.
>events around you because they don't affect you directly. Your arguments
>in the Vince Foster case highlight this insular outlook of yours, Scott.
On the contrary, my field is international relations, and I'm very involved
in analyzing and understanding many things that don't directly affect me. I,
like everyone else, don't have the time to analyze and study every event in
the world. So I have to pick and choose. You Foster conspiracy theorists
are in the same class as many other groups that allege conspiracies which
would need massive involvement so that it doesn't seem realistic. It's
probably good you all are out there to keep people on their toes, but nobody
has the time to analyze every claim by every marginal group out there. You
should understand that. And given that experts from all sides almost
uniformally disagree with your view, and that counter evidence has been
posted which I find persuasive, I just don't have the time for your
particular cause.
It is wrong to read that as my not having the time for any cause or problem.
> When Billy says, "It should have been *you* in the park", that is meant
>to bring the reality of the situation directly into your personal world,
I study war and conflict too. I cry when I see scenes from Yugoslavia and
Iraq. It upsets me when I hear about torture. I just don't necessarily have
the same view of you on this situation, nor do I look at the same particular
issues you do in the same way. Unless you want to say everyone should think
like you, your attacks are unfair.
Think about it.
cheers, scott
Rob Robertson
Anonymous wrote:
>
> In article <6itceg$dmk$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>
> Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
> >In article <35521B...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> >>
> >>Billy Beck wrote:
> >
> >>> I think you should issue rubber suits and protective goggles to
> >>> all your students and then blow your fucking head off with a .38 Colt
> >>> at the top of your very first lecture.
> >
> >> no blood to be found, and probably no fingerprints, either. And if
> >> any conspirowhackoloons ever argue against suicide, I'll argue
> >> vigorously against it for the sake of poor dead Scott's memory. Well,
> >> actually I'll just repost Erb's articles about Foster and change the
> >> name.
> This is a sick fantasy.
If only it were a fantasy. Unfortunately, this is a desription of a very
real event, but in the sick, oozy world of grinning dopes, it becomes
disconnected from the larger reality around them until it just fades away
into the mist, relegated to the sobriquet of 'old news'.
It's really starting to sink in that this 'marketplace for the exchange
of ideas' that is Usenet is just not enough to reach some people; for that
self-deluded group who prostrate themselves before usurped authority, the
only way they will understand is to experience the repurcussions for
themselves, and unfortunately a lot of other people are going to go along
for the ride, whether they like it or not.
> >See folks, what kind of perverts these guys are!
> >
> >Scratch them a bit, say something they don't like (and all I did was invite
> >them to read some books and visit my website to find out about political
> >ideology) and their minds start fantasizing about death, violence, gore...
> >
> >Their words speak for themselves.
> >
> >Thanks, Billy and Rob, for demonstrating how your minds work ;)
> >cheers, scott
>
> I think too many of the gunloons resort to violent fantasies when
> they fail to persuade with rational arguments.
Sadly for you, statists resort to violent *realities* when rational
arguments fail to persuade. There have been many gigabytes of proof
of this posted (and endlessly reposted) in the Internet over the last
decade, and if you choose not to hear, then you will just have learn
by first-hand experience.
> Couple that with an obsession to know the real names of folks that
> disagree with them, where they live, whether they have Jewish kids,
> and get some disturbing possibilities.
>
> Smarty Cuss
>
> What the NRA doesn't want you to see :
> <snip>
>
> Proof that Chris "Snorts" Morton is a pathetic liar (hide your
> eyes, Patty) :
I'll take Chris Morton over you any day of the week. At least
Chris is real, and honest.
_
Rob Robertson
Tim Starr
In article <3552CE...@columbia-center.org>,
Sure I can. It would please me greatly if you'd apologize for lying.
[snip]
>>>In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
>>>that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists...
>
>>Oh? Since when did they support private ownership of the means of
>>production?
>
>I never said they supported private ownership of the means of production
>-- I said they were capitalists: STATE capitalists.
But capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production,
not State ownership of the means of production.
>Is this concept too difficult for you?
No more so than the concept of a square circle.
>Maybe we'd better take it slow: try to tell me what you think the term
>"state capitalist" means and we can take it from there.
That depends on who says it. When a socialist says it, it means: "Not REAL
socialism," i.e., socialism with his particular gang of organized criminals
in charge.
When a capitalist says it, it means "Real socialism," i.e., mass robbery,
mass enslavement, & mass murder, as has been the result of every attempt to
put socialism into practice on a permanent, large-scale basis.
Rob Robertson
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> In article <35531F...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
>
> > Of course, you *do* understand the point of that was to show that it's
> >quite easy to be smiley and cheerful about issues that don't immediately
> >affect you, like the death of the deputy White House Counsel. He wasn't
> >a friend of yours, and he was easily replaced, so why invest any emotional
> >stock in *that* issue, right?
>
> Well, let's be consistent. Let's get emotional about every death then.
Boy, that would be real hard to do, what with the huge number of deaths
that occur daily. Oh, I get it! Because we can't care about all of them,
we shouldn't bother caring about any of them, especially if they concern
a White House lawyer who has died under mysterious circumstances.
That's just the way you work, Erb. I know that *for myself* now.
> Actually, the difference of opinion is not that Foster's suicide isn't sad,
> but that you and Billy, and a very tiny group of conspiracy theories, just
> don't believe what all the experts say. That's fine. You seem to think that
> not believing you is akin to what you write above. That's silly.
You're doing it again. You step away from the issue with your professorial
air of detachment, and then proclaim some kind of attachment, in this case
sadness, which serves to shift the focus of the issue. The point is not
whether his death was 'sad', the point is that it appears a high government
official was assassinated, and the cover-up extends from the media all the
way to the White House. *That* is what is 'sad', Scott.
You may like to believe that it is a 'very tiny group' of people who doubt
the official verdict, and perhaps by your rote repetition of that you might
convince some others, but there are a great number of people, some of them
'experts', who do not believe that he committed suicide in Fort Marcy Park.
You and I had begun a debate on this issue, and it took you only two or
three posts before you started out-right lying to me, Scott. I gave you
the benefit of the doubt and disregarded the on-going feud you have with
Billy and started afresh with you; no name-calling, stick to the facts,
fair and honest appraisal of the evidence - and it fell apart in a matter
of days.
> > You disconnect meaning from words, and you disconnect yourself from the
>
> And you make jokes about people who you are responding to dying. Billy even
> tells people to "go and die." Yet that doens't seem to bother you.
If you are ever discovered dead in a park, and all of your family and
friends express surprise and shock at your apparent suicide, and the
gun can't be traced to you, it has no fingerprints on it, the 'suicide
note' that a colleague finds a week later is deemed to be a forgery, etc,...
consider the arguments that would be made for and against suicide. I
certainly don't want any harm to come to you, Scott, but I've seen
your arguments in the Vince Foster case, and it's my opinion that you
don't simply have a different viewpoint - you outright lie.
> >events around you because they don't affect you directly. Your arguments
> >in the Vince Foster case highlight this insular outlook of yours, Scott.
>
> On the contrary, my field is international relations, and I'm very involved
> in analyzing and understanding many things that don't directly affect me. I,
> like everyone else, don't have the time to analyze and study every event in
> the world. So I have to pick and choose. You Foster conspiracy theorists
> are in the same class as many other groups that allege conspiracies which
> would need massive involvement so that it doesn't seem realistic. It's
> probably good you all are out there to keep people on their toes, but nobody
> has the time to analyze every claim by every marginal group out there. You
> should understand that.
But that never stops you from spouting off and ridiculing those who have
looked at the evidence more closely than you and have determined that it
is not consistent with suicide.
And given that experts from all sides almost
> uniformally disagree with your view, and that counter evidence has been
> posted which I find persuasive, I just don't have the time for your
> particular cause.
I have posted a number of expert sources that disagree with the finding,
and if you would like to start a debate of the issue again, then we can
examine this evidence which you find so persuasive. To date, I have not
seen you provide any counter evidence whatsoever. Would you care to start
a new thread, starting from square-one, to present your case for suicide?
> It is wrong to read that as my not having the time for any cause or problem.
>
> > When Billy says, "It should have been *you* in the park", that is meant
> >to bring the reality of the situation directly into your personal world,
>
> I study war and conflict too. I cry when I see scenes from Yugoslavia and
> Iraq. It upsets me when I hear about torture. I just don't necessarily have
> the same view of you on this situation, nor do I look at the same particular
> issues you do in the same way. Unless you want to say everyone should think
> like you, your attacks are unfair.
You *know* that I approached you openly and fairly on this issue, looking
for your perspective and the evidence that has convinced you of suicide in
this case, and you shut me down with lies and diversions. If you truly have
a different opinion that you can back up with evidence, I will give it a
fair review, and I'll tell you that I *welcome* any evidence that would
convince me of the suicide ruling, because as it stands now, the alternative
leaves me feeling very unsettled.
> Think about it.
> cheers, scott
_
Rob Robertson
Scott D. Erb
In article <355358...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> It's really starting to sink in that this 'marketplace for the exchange
>of ideas' that is Usenet is just not enough to reach some people; for that
>self-deluded group who prostrate themselves before usurped authority,
Of course, for you Rob anyone who doesn't agree with your view is defined by
virtual of that disagreement as something you find detestable. I'm afraid
you'll be upset with most of the people you run into for as long as you live
as long as you keep that view.
> I'll take Chris Morton over you any day of the week. At least
>Chris is real, and honest.
Well, he calls everyone names who disagrees with him too.
The problem is that some of us can accept a difference of opinion without
thinking the other person is somehow evil. And some of us recognize that
people have different interests, and won't focus on precisely that issue which
we may find intriguing and important.
In sum: we're not all going to be like you or think like you. Unless you want
a planet of robots, that's the way it is.
Dan Clore
Tim Starr wrote:
> In article <3552CE...@columbia-center.org>,
> Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> >Apparently Tim Starr cannot be pleased.
> Sure I can. It would please me greatly if you'd apologize for lying.
Okay, but I doubt you'll be pleased: I was "lying" when I said that Tim
Starr's comment was an argument rather than a mere vacuous assertion of
something that everybody knows anyway, without any sense or meaning
behind it.
> >>>In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
> >>>that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists...
> >
> >>Oh? Since when did they support private ownership of the means of
> >>production?
> >
> >I never said they supported private ownership of the means of production
> >-- I said they were capitalists: STATE capitalists.
> But capitalism is defined as private ownership of the means of production,
> not State ownership of the means of production.
No, capitalism has been *re*-defined as "private ownership" of the means
of production. BTW, how do you square "private ownership" with ownership
by state-created, state-maintained fictitious persons (known as
corporations)?
> >Is this concept too difficult for you?
>
> No more so than the concept of a square circle.
Or an oxymoron like "anarcho-capitalism".
> >Maybe we'd better take it slow: try to tell me what you think the term
> >"state capitalist" means and we can take it from there.
> That depends on who says it. When a socialist says it, it means: "Not REAL
> socialism," i.e., socialism with his particular gang of organized criminals
> in charge.
That's not what Lenin & Castro meant, now is it? (And remember, Lenin
coined the term.)
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord We˙rdgliffe:
Loren Petrich
In article <6iv43t$171i$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In any event, state capitalism of a sort is also the strategy used by the
>NICs (Newly Industrializing Countries) of Asia to try to develop and
>industrialize quickly.
In fact, one may even make a case that it would be difficult to
mobilize the necessary resources by any other means. It's something like
the grim joke that the easiest way to get a loan is to demonstrate that
one does not really need one, the reason being that such a demonstration
would prove to the bank that it can get its money back.
It is certainly possible to have too much centralization -- as
the Soviet Union, for example, had shown -- but it may be possible to
have too little.
If one looked 1000-500 years ago, Europe may have seemed like
something of a backwater to some parts of the world, but one thing that
had helped Europe is that it had not been as centralized as (say) China
had been. China had sent big fleets of "Treasure Ships" to as far away as
Africa, but when the order to stop doing that came down from the top,
they stopped doing that.
However, Europe had been much more divided, and there was more
chance of finding some leader who would be willing to support some
harebrained scheme such as sailing westward across the Atlantic to get to
the Far East (the big difficulty was the very long distance; Columbus was
lucky to run into some land in between). This helped explain why Europe
was more successful than China in recent centuries.
And as to statist and semi-statist development in recent decades,
Japan has been successful in avoiding Soviet-style centralization by
having several big companies compete. They are big enough to have plenty
of resources, but they have competition.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
pet...@netcom.com And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
Tim Starr
>says...
>>
>>
>>Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
>>>you think the term "state capitalist" means and we can take it from
>>>there.
>>
>
>No, Billy, you just don't really know your stuff here in these debates.
>
>NICs (Newly Industrializing Countries) of Asia to try to develop and
>industrialize quickly.
Really? Since when did Hong Kong use state ownership of the means of
production to industrialize quickly? Or Japan, or South Korea, etc., for
that matter?
Scott D. Erb
>Really? Since when did Hong Kong use state ownership of the means of
>production to industrialize quickly? Or Japan, or South Korea, etc., for
>that matter?
State capitalism was very evident in Korea and Japan and many other NICs. It
involves massive state investment and interference in the economy (though not
state ownership - you misunderstand the term...though that's forgiveable since
this is outside your area of expertise, which I believe is computers, right?).
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
In article <355376...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> But that never stops you from spouting off and ridiculing those who have
>looked at the evidence more closely than you and have determined that it
>is not consistent with suicide.
Most all experts I've read, and evidence posted here, disagrees with you and a
small group of people who aren't convinced. But that's fine, if it makes you
feel better, I won't ridicule you. You have your opinion, I don't find it
persausive. I have my opinion, you disagree. That's no reason to hate or
despise each other.
Mike>>Schneider
In article <1998050817...@basement.replay.com>, nob...@REPLAY.COM
(Anonymous) wrote:
>Maybe Billy should file for disability compensation. :)
Maybe you should graw your goddamn testicles off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To prevent email spam, my email address is altered. To reach me, you
must replace everything before the @ with "mike1" and delete any CAPS.
Covet: To desire that which the owner wickedly withholds.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary
Rob Robertson
Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
> In article <355358...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
>
> > It's really starting to sink in that this 'marketplace for the exchange
> >of ideas' that is Usenet is just not enough to reach some people; for that
> >self-deluded group who prostrate themselves before usurped authority,
>
> Of course, for you Rob anyone who doesn't agree with your view is defined by
> virtual of that disagreement as something you find detestable. I'm afraid
> you'll be upset with most of the people you run into for as long as you live
> as long as you keep that view.
Scotty, I disagree with most everybody about *something*, okay? Very
rarely does that disagreement devolve into name-calling and open
contempt; that I save for those who refuse to debate the issues honestly
and openly, but instead intrude on a thread with dismissive posts that
do nothing to clarify the issue.
> > I'll take Chris Morton over you any day of the week. At least
> >Chris is real, and honest.
>
> Well, he calls everyone names who disagrees with him too.
When the issue is the defense of the Second Amendment, or gun rights
in general, I can understand the heated nature of some of his replies,
especially when responding to scum like voltaire.
> The problem is that some of us can accept a difference of opinion without
> thinking the other person is somehow evil. And some of us recognize that
> people have different interests, and won't focus on precisely that issue which
> we may find intriguing and important.
And some of us realize that if you don't find an issue intriguing and
important, then maybe you should just keep your opinions to yourself.
If you *do* find it intriguing enough to comment on, then you should
provide evidence that backs up your claims. Seems pretty simple to me.
> In sum: we're not all going to be like you or think like you. Unless you want
> a planet of robots, that's the way it is.
Thank you, Professor Obvious.
Now, do you want to continue with these no-content editorial posts,
or would you like to discuss the Foster case in a separate thread?
I'd suggest a thread title of, "Erb on Foster". Post *whatever* you
have that has convinced you that Foster committed suicide, even if
it's nothing more than deferral to authority. Just be up front about it.
Straight up, square one, in civil tones, cards on the table.
What do you say?
_
Rob Robotson
Scott Erb
>Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>>What a remarkable job you've done clearing that up for us, Tim! -- I
>>never realized it before, but not only am *I* not a socialist, I don't
>>even *know* any!
>
>Good, the less of them there are in the world the better. Now, if you'd
>just abandon all the ideological vestiges they left behind...
Well, Tim has to be given credit for one thing: he has his faith, and it
gives him a set of answers and perspectives which allows him to see the
world in very black and white terms, and thus believe in his cause.
Many people would like that kind of comfort, but alas most of us on
reflection and analysis believe it to be a delusion. Starr's rambling
attack on the the page on Hitler amounted to: "the article didn't fit my
ideological labels, therefore its wrong." Starr is a true believer, he
has his faith.
Scott Erb
>As for your sources, if they lie like you then they aren't worth my time.
How convenient, you refuse to look up scholarly works on political
ideology which show you to be off base because you call me names. Cute.
Do you still want to claim the Nazis, Socialists and Communists were
working together in the Weimar Republic, Tim? Hmmmmmm?
Your rhetoric and lies are so transparent that I'm amazed you don't just
crawl away.
Mark Roddy
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>>Really? Since when did Hong Kong use state ownership of the means of
>>production to industrialize quickly? Or Japan, or South Korea, etc., for
>>that matter?
>
>State capitalism was very evident in Korea and Japan and many other NICs. It
>involves massive state investment and interference in the economy (though not
>state ownership - you misunderstand the term...though that's forgiveable since
>this is outside your area of expertise, which I believe is computers, right?).
>cheers, scott
besides, hong kong was a colony - a fact that our right wing friends
keep forgetting as they trip over themselves heaping praise on it as a
paragon of free enterprise. Hong Kong's wealth was built through the
combination of british gunboats and the centuries long attempt by the
collapsing chinese empire to keep the rest of the world at bay. Its
wealth was built from trading, not from industrialization, and its
trading wealth was derived from the artificial situation created by
China and Britain.
Mark Roddy
tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>In article <6itch8$dmk$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>>Precisely. No argument to prove that either were socialist at all, just an
>>>identification of them as such.
>>
>>Gee, Tim gets caught in a lie...
>
>I never argued that Nazi Germany or the USSR were socialist simply because
>they sad they were in their names. I merely pointed out that they announced
>their socialism to the world in the names of their political organizations.
You are twisting in the wind here Tim, you have descended to the
rhetoric of a nine year old caught in an obvious contradiction.
Mike>>Schneider
In article <35580631....@news.mv.com>, mro...@wattanuck.mv.com
(Mark Roddy) wrote:
>tims...@netcom.com (Tim Starr) wrote:
>
>>In article <6itch8$dmk$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
>>Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>>>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>>>
>>>>Precisely. No argument to prove that either were socialist at all, just an
>>>>identification of them as such.
>>>
>>>Gee, Tim gets caught in a lie...
>>
>>I never argued that Nazi Germany or the USSR were socialist simply because
>>they said they were in their names. I merely pointed out that they announced
>>their socialism to the world in the names of their political organizations.
>
>You are twisting in the wind here Tim, you have descended to the
>rhetoric of a nine year old caught in an obvious contradiction.
Where? What "rhetoric"? What "obvious contradiction"?
Oh nevermind. My only curiousity here is whether or not you fall into
the consciously mendacious camp of Scott Erb, or the earnest stupidity
camp of Loren Petrich.
Mike<<Schneider
In article <355704b8....@news.mv.com>, mro...@wattanuck.mv.com
(Mark Roddy) wrote:
>scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>
>>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>>Really? Since when did Hong Kong use state ownership of the means of
>>>production to industrialize quickly? Or Japan, or South Korea, etc., for
>>>that matter?
>>
>>State capitalism was very evident in Korea and Japan and many other NICs. It
>>involves massive state investment and interference in the economy (though not
>>state ownership - you misunderstand the term...though that's forgiveable
since
>>this is outside your area of expertise, which I believe is computers, right?).
>>cheers, scott
>
>besides, hong kong was a colony - a fact that our right wing friends
Why do assholes like you always persist in calling your opponants
"friends"? It really is very cloying.
>keep forgetting as they trip over themselves heaping praise on it as a
>paragon of free enterprise.
Only in comparisonal terms.
For instance, how much interference did the Crown run in the HK
economy, as opposed to the US? Oh no, don't go near *that* argument....
>Hong Kong's wealth was built through the
>combination of british gunboats and the centuries long attempt by the
>collapsing chinese empire to keep the rest of the world at bay.
Oh sure, they built all those fuckin' skyscrapers in 1898, huh.
>Its wealth was built from trading, not from industrialization,
Well how the *fuck* do you think goods get from industry to the buyers
without TRADING? (Ooooo, that evil trading.... Scarrrry kids....)
>and its trading wealth was derived from the artificial situation created by
>China and Britain.
Yeah, the "artificial situation" of not buying into a lot of Erbypoo's
favorite communazi theft schemes.
My, they were awefully clever, weren't they?
David Friedman
Dan Clore, or possibly someone else earlier in the thread, wrote:
>In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
>that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists...
Isn't the problem here that "capitalist" and "socialist" are not really
parallel terms? "Socialist" means a believer in socialism, "capitalist"
means someone playing a particular role in capitalism--living off his
capital. The correct parallelism is (roughly) socialist/classical liberal,
commissar/capitalist. Thus, whatever Lenin and Castro were, Engels (if I
correctly remember the relevant history) was both a capitalist and a
socialist.
--
David Friedman
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Scott Erb
In article <ddfr-11059...@129.210.78.3>, dd...@best.com says...
>
> Dan Clore, or possibly someone else earlier in the thread, wrote:
>
>>In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
>>that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists...
>
>Isn't the problem here that "capitalist" and "socialist" are not really
>parallel terms?
Actually, I'd prefer to ditch both terms, as there are few hard core
believers in any one. Reality suggests markets are good and private property
necessary. It also suggests government is necessary, and markets are often
unjust. The result: most people want to see some kind of market economy with
private property, along with with government regulations and social welfare
programs. The question is what kind of mix is rationale, just, and
practical. Ideas on that issue range from the more free market group to
democratic socialists. On the fringes there are "true" socialists and
capitalists who stick to their faith, but they are an ever smaller minority.
Now, we if we ditch these vague, extreme terms, then we need to come up with
something different than just "mixed" to reflect all the variations within,
and something by which we can compare and assess the different sorts of
systems and proposals which exist. So far, most people seem to argue either
on ideological faith, or an issue by issue approach to current events. Maybe
new, imaginative thinking is called for.
cheers, scott
Rob Robertson
Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
> In article <355376...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
>
> > But that never stops you from spouting off and ridiculing those who have
> >looked at the evidence more closely than you and have determined that it
> >is not consistent with suicide.
>
> small group of people who aren't convinced. But that's fine, if it makes you
> feel better, I won't ridicule you. You have your opinion, I don't find it
> persausive. I have my opinion, you disagree. That's no reason to hate or
> despise each other.
That's true, and I apologize if I've said anything to hurt your feelings.
I just felt that a growing list of dead people might deserve some
mention, and that killing people isn't such a great way of running
an administration. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this time a murderous
political machine won't destroy the nation that brought it to life,
and maybe millions of people won't die by its bloody hand.
I mean, Vicki Weaver *needed* killin', right? And those whacky
gun-lovin' Branch Davidians needed killin', too. And those loony
freaks on TWA 800,... well, I don't know why they had to die, but
I'm sure they needed killin' for *some* reason or other.
Maybe it will all be okay if we sell communist China our missile
technology - they wouldn't hurt us after we sold them all those
wonderful toys, right?
Maybe history will just come to a screeching halt, and none of it
will touch our comfortable lives.
Again, sorry about hurting your feelings.
_
Rob Robertson
Scott Erb
In article <35574D...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> That's true, and I apologize if I've said anything to hurt your feelings.
Same to you -- though really in this forum if anything anyone says can hurt
ones feelings they probably shouldn't be here, at least not discussing
controversial issues! My own credo is not to carry a grudge, and to try to
avoid getting angry or personally provcative (alas, I still attack too
quickly at times...)
> I just felt that a growing list of dead people might deserve some
>mention, and that killing people isn't such a great way of running
>an administration. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this time a murderous
>political machine won't destroy the nation that brought it to life,
>and maybe millions of people won't die by its bloody hand.
I just don't believe all of this is some conspiracy.
> I mean, Vicki Weaver *needed* killin', right? And those whacky
>gun-lovin' Branch Davidians needed killin', too. And those loony
>freaks on TWA 800,... well, I don't know why they had to die, but
>I'm sure they needed killin' for *some* reason or other.
Well, I think the TWA 800 was pretty certainly an accident, though the other
two incidents are failures of government agencies (however, I wouldn't
whitewash the role that Randy Weaver or David Koresh played -- it takes two
to tango).
> Maybe it will all be okay if we sell communist China our missile
>technology - they wouldn't hurt us after we sold them all those
>wonderful toys, right?
Probably not, since we could hurt them back, but I would prefer not to take
that risk.
> Maybe history will just come to a screeching halt, and none of it
>will touch our comfortable lives.
Or maybe an imperfect species with imperfect social systems can learn and
develop slowly to try to create a better world. The trouble is that while a
lot of crap happens, not everything is a conspiracy, just as not everything
is innocent. Some of you seem to see conspiracies everywhere, and I just
don't find that convincing. And unless a workable, feasible alternative is
offered, then working through this step by step, recognizing there is a lot
we don't know, seems the only thing we can do.
cheers, scott
Loren Petrich
> Maybe it will all be okay if we sell communist China our missile
>technology - they wouldn't hurt us after we sold them all those
>wonderful toys, right?
Tell that to all the business leaders who seem to think that
Red China is such a wonderful place to do business in.
This reminds me of something that Lenin never claimed, even if he
often implied it:
The capitalists will sell the rope that the Communists will use
to hang them.
Rob Robertson
Scott Erb wrote:
>
> In article <35574D...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
>
> > That's true, and I apologize if I've said anything to hurt your feelings.
>
> Same to you -- though really in this forum if anything anyone says can hurt
> ones feelings they probably shouldn't be here, at least not discussing
> controversial issues! My own credo is not to carry a grudge, and to try to
> avoid getting angry or personally provcative (alas, I still attack too
> quickly at times...)
I feel the same, but from my point of view, my country, my *kids'* country,
is coming apart at the seams. The Federal government is unaccountable for
*anything*, and it seems that every other day brings news about some other
rights being destroyed. *That* is why I get emotional and angry, and in my
view you and the weasels are helping to destroy this country by dismissing
serious injustices as 'conspiracy theories' and such.
> > I just felt that a growing list of dead people might deserve some
> >mention, and that killing people isn't such a great way of running
> >an administration. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this time a murderous
> >political machine won't destroy the nation that brought it to life,
> >and maybe millions of people won't die by its bloody hand.
>
> I just don't believe all of this is some conspiracy.
And I think self-delusion can be very comforting at times.
> > I mean, Vicki Weaver *needed* killin', right? And those whacky
> >gun-lovin' Branch Davidians needed killin', too. And those loony
> >freaks on TWA 800,... well, I don't know why they had to die, but
> >I'm sure they needed killin' for *some* reason or other.
>
> Well, I think the TWA 800 was pretty certainly an accident, though the other
> two incidents are failures of government agencies (however, I wouldn't
> whitewash the role that Randy Weaver or David Koresh played -- it takes two
> to tango).
It's mind-boggling that we find ourselves on different sides of the
fence regarding nearly *every* major atrocity that has been committed
in this decade.
I had the TV on when the news of TWA 800 first broke; I can still
recall the live footage of the burning wreckage on the water, and
hearing eyewitnesses comment on seeing 'a streak of light', 'a flare',
'fireworks', rising from the water just before the aircraft exploded.
"Oh man, someone took that plane out with a missile" was my first
thought, and *every* turn of that case reinforced that idea, whether
it was Navy divers escorting New York City police divers *out* of
the crash area, the Russell memo, articles in Aviation Week & Space
Technology, etc,...
Yeah, it pretty certainly was an accident. The Navy accidently blew
up a jetliner with 230 innocent people on board. *That* is what makes
that case so interesting, Scott, and it's also why you cannot accept
that it's true; there are no 'white separatists' or 'religious fanatics'
to cloud the issue here. That case comes right on down to *us*, Scott,
to anybody who's ever flown on a plane hoping that they'll come back
in one piece. You simply can't afford that kind of cognitive dissonance,
to believe that the White House could orchestrate a cover-up of the
killing of innocent people, because that would undermine the entire
house of cards that you've constructed by supporting this criminal
regime.
> > Maybe it will all be okay if we sell communist China our missile
> >technology - they wouldn't hurt us after we sold them all those
> >wonderful toys, right?
>
> Probably not, since we could hurt them back, but I would prefer not to take
> that risk.
>
> > Maybe history will just come to a screeching halt, and none of it
> >will touch our comfortable lives.
>
> Or maybe an imperfect species with imperfect social systems can learn and
> develop slowly to try to create a better world. The trouble is that while a
> lot of crap happens, not everything is a conspiracy, just as not everything
> is innocent. Some of you seem to see conspiracies everywhere, and I just
> don't find that convincing. And unless a workable, feasible alternative is
> offered, then working through this step by step, recognizing there is a lot
> we don't know, seems the only thing we can do.
> cheers, scott
I don't see conspiracies everywhere, Scott, only where there is evidence
for them. There is no way that this imperfect species is going to create
a better world if we refuse to open our eyes and face the facts. You could
start by looking at the picture of Vince Foster with a gun still in his
hand and a clean white shirtsleeve. I *know* what a .38 revolver is going
to do if someone puts it in their mouth and pull the trigger; it's going
to make a bloody mess of the persons head, and blood and gore is going to
be sprayed all over the place, and yet the FBI said that there was *no*
blood on the gun, and as can be seen in that photo, there wasn't even a
spot of blood on his white shirtsleeve.
In the case of TWA 800, you could look at the diagram in AW&ST, in the
August 19, 1996 issue, page 84 that accompanies the article _Teams
Untangle Mass of Evidence_. The diagram shows the three debris fields
along with a left, right, and top view of the aircraft and where the
various pieces were found. Two panels, one on each side of the business
class section of the fuselage, were the first to hit the water, followed
by the nose of the jet in the middle debris field, and finally the tail
and engines splashed down in the furthest, eastern-most debris field.
That diagram fits the missile scenario, but not the CWT scenario.
Two pictures tell a lot, and from there we can proceed with various
documents and testimony, theories and conjecture, but nothing is
going to change until we open our eyes to the facts.
I'm tellin' ya, Scott, get disillusioned early and beat the rush,
because the curtain is coming down fast.
_
Rob Robertson
Tim Starr
In article <6j0hvd$11ii$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>>Really? Since when did Hong Kong use state ownership of the means of
>>production to industrialize quickly? Or Japan, or South Korea, etc., for
>>that matter?
>
>State capitalism was very evident in Korea and Japan and many other NICs. It
>involves massive state investment and interference in the economy (though not
>state ownership - you misunderstand the term...
Tell it to your fellow lying socialist Dan Clore, who was the one that tried
to define state capitalism as state ownership of the means of production, not
me.
Tim Starr
In article <6j20hr$jho$6...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>>
>>Dan Clore <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
>
>>>What a remarkable job you've done clearing that up for us, Tim! -- I
>>>never realized it before, but not only am *I* not a socialist, I don't
>>>even *know* any!
>>
>>Good, the less of them there are in the world the better. Now, if you'd
>>just abandon all the ideological vestiges they left behind...
>
>Well, Tim has to be given credit for one thing: he has his faith, and it
>gives him a set of answers and perspectives which allows him to see the
>world in very black and white terms, and thus believe in his cause.
>
>Many people would like that kind of comfort, but alas most of us on
>reflection and analysis believe it to be a delusion. Starr's rambling
>attack on the the page on Hitler amounted to: "the article didn't fit my
>ideological labels, therefore its wrong."
Lie. It was full of errors. Its misrepresentation of individualism vs.
collectivism was just one of them. Its "proof" that Nazism was pro-
capitalist by showing that it was anti-Marxist was completely beside the
point, the Nazis got their term "The Third Reich" from a book advocating a
third alternative between classical liberalism & Stalinism that was originally
called "The Third Way," & advocated private ownership of the means of
production, with State central planning of its use.
I also pointed out how the Nazis only supported competition between nations,
not within them, contrary to Kangas' claims that they were completely in
favor of competition.
He also completely misrepresents feudalism, capitalism, & socialism in terms
of ownership of the means of production, presenting the choice between
capitalism & socialism as one between ownership by many & ownership by all,
when the real alternative is between plural ownership of several property &
ownership of all property by a single agency - which would allegedly be the
agent of the people, of course.
Tim Starr
In article <6j20d5$jho$5...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>
>How convenient, you refuse to look up scholarly works on political
>ideology which show you to be off base because you call me names. Cute.
Why should I waste any more of my time looking up sources from a liar whose
previous sources haven't said what he said they would?
>Do you still want to claim the Nazis, Socialists and Communists were
>working together in the Weimar Republic, Tim? Hmmmmmm?
I don't think I've yet claimed that, but now I will: the Nazis, Socialists,
& Communists all co-operated with each other at one time or another during
the Weimar Republic, all helping to destroy it.
>Your rhetoric and lies are so transparent that I'm amazed you don't just
>crawl away.
Funny, I've often thought the same about you, Professor of Lies.
Scott D. Erb
In article <355773...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> I feel the same, but from my point of view, my country, my *kids'* country,
>is coming apart at the seams. The Federal government is unaccountable for
>*anything*, and it seems that every other day brings news about some other
>rights being destroyed.
OK, let's think about this. First, I'll grant you a lot of what you say in
terms of the need to increase accountability. But try looking things not in
the worst light (you seem to assume conspiracy theories are true), and also
look at things in a comparative light (look at other places and the past).
When you do that, it seems that things are not so bad here, and indeed there
is hope. We have struggled to form a constitutional democracy, we can vote,
we can express our opinions (online, on the street corner), act politically,
and bring about change. That's something!
> *That* is why I get emotional and angry, and in my
>view you and the weasels are helping to destroy this country by dismissing
>serious injustices as 'conspiracy theories' and such.
Well, perhaps I do get dismissive too quickly, but a lot of that is due to the
type of abuse people like Billy Beck and Michael Schneider heep on everyone
who disagrees with them. They draw that kind of response; indeed, I think
that's their intent.
> I had the TV on when the news of TWA 800 first broke; I can still
>recall the live footage of the burning wreckage on the water, and
>hearing eyewitnesses comment on seeing 'a streak of light', 'a flare',
Oh, even the guy who spread the story admits it was a hoax designed just to
make government look bad. I see no reason why the government would want
Koresh and everyone to die at Waco, it's obviously an error and the FBI in
later standoffs seems to have learned and not repeated those mistakes.
It's also interesting how you dismiss experts from many sources in order to go
with your whims. That doesn't seem too persuasive to me, at least given how
the situation now is understood. I mean you'd need a vast conspiracy for
that, involving many people out of government. I don't think that's possible.
> I'm tellin' ya, Scott, get disillusioned early and beat the rush,
>because the curtain is coming down fast.
Well, time will tell, I guess. But at the very least I agree that government
should be made more accountable, and that secrecy in military and law
enforcement, etc. should be ended, with more open to the public. I can agree
on those practical measures, even as I am unpersuaded by you about the causes
of some of these events.
cheers, scott
Tim Starr
In article <6j809r$1pi2$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
[snip]
>> I had the TV on when the news of TWA 800 first broke; I can still
>>recall the live footage of the burning wreckage on the water, and
>>hearing eyewitnesses comment on seeing 'a streak of light', 'a flare',
>
>Oh, even the guy who spread the story admits it was a hoax designed just to
>make government look bad.
Lie. "The guy" is Ian Goddard, who said no such thing. He was misrepresented
in the press as having said that, & immediately posted a correction all over
the Internet.
I personally have no opinion about TWA800, but I do have an opinion about
the Professor of Lies.
>I see no reason why the government would want Koresh and everyone to die at
>Waco...
Silencing witnesses to the government's murders in the initial raid, for one.
Asserting the authority of the Federal government, for another.
Scott D. Erb
>I also pointed out how the Nazis only supported competition between nations,
>not within them,
You are ignorant of history, as your claim that the Socialists and Nazis were
working together (which they never did).
You can't admit an error because you are a sophist, twisting words and
rhetoric to try to advance your twisted view on morality and ethics.
Luckily, as an educator, I do what I can to make sure students are immune to
the type of sophistry propagated by your dishonest ilk.
Scott D. Erb
>Why should I waste any more of my time looking up sources from a liar
Are you saying that Funderburk and Thobaben, and Leon Baradat, respected
scholars, are liars?
No, you won't look them up because they don't agree with your faith, your
belief on what ideology is. You are willfully ignorant of anything which
might contradict your faith in your system of ethics and philosophy. That
makes you nothing but a little sniveling sophist.
Scott D. Erb
>Lie. "The guy" is Ian Goddard, who said no such thing. He was
>misrepresented
(snicker)
Yeah, right, Tim...keep that propaganda and sophistry flowing!
Rationalize! Explain everything away until it fits your world view.
Sigh.
Tim Starr
In article <6j80q0$1pi2$8...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, the Professor of Lies,
>>not within them,
>
Hmm, instead of coming up with a counter-example of how the Nazis supported
competition within nations, the Professor of Lies just engages in the abusive
ad hominem fallacy of accusing me of being somehow ignorant. How informative!
>as your claim that the Socialists and Nazis were working together (which they
>never did).
Except when the Socialists were using the nationalist Freikorps to suppress
the Spartacist uprising of Berlin in 1920. Lemme guess: you're gonna try to
weasel out of this because technically the Freikorps weren't officially part
of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, even though their membership
did overlap, they shared the same goals & methods, & the Freikorps were the
model for the Sturm Abteilungen.
>You can't admit an error...
Sure I can. I once thought you were merely mistaken, instead of being a
Professor of Lies.
Tim Starr
In article <6j80sr$1pi2$9...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, the Professor of Lies,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>
>Are you saying that Funderburk and Thobaben, and Leon Baradat, respected
>scholars, are liars?
No, I'm saying that you're a liar, & that your endorsement of them in the
absence of any detailed evidence from them isn't enough to persuade me that
it would be profitable to look them up.
Tim Starr
In article <6j8277$1lha$2...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, the Professor of Lies,
Scott D. Erb <scot...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>
>>misrepresented
>
>(snicker)
>
>Yeah, right, Tim...keep that propaganda and sophistry flowing!
>
>Rationalize! Explain everything away until it fits your world view.
To reset the context, the Professor of Lies claimed that Ian Goddard had
admitted that the theory that TWA800 was shot down by a Navy missile was
a "hoax." Here's what Goddard himself has to say about it:
"In an ill-fated effort to escape universal
mass-media misrepresentation and threats of
physical violence, I retracted my TWA 800
theory and offered an apology to all my
research wrongfully accused (which excludes
all it rightfully accused). But rather than
let up on me, the GovtMedia gunned down the
man with a surrender flag by portraying this
as an admission that my theory was a hoax,
even after I told CNN it was NO HOAX!"
- http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hoax.htm
The Professor of Lies then simply launched into an ad hominem attack against
me for pointing out that, once again, he lied, & accused me of trying to
twist the facts to fit my worldview.
This, after I had expressly said that I have no opinion about whether TWA800
was shot down by a missile or simply blew up by accident. I've never been
very interested in the subject.
How does quoting from Goddard's own web site to correct the Professor of
Lies twist the facts to fit my worldview?
bliz...@bellatlantic.net
In article <6j7h37$fo0$1...@sol.caps.maine.edu>,
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
> Actually, I'd prefer to ditch both terms, as there are few hard core
> believers in any one. Reality suggests markets are good and private
> property
> necessary. It also suggests government is necessary, and markets are often
> unjust. The result: most people want to see some kind of market economy
> with
> private property, along with with government regulations and social welfare
> programs. The question is what kind of mix is rationale, just, and
> practical. Ideas on that issue range from the more free market group to
> democratic socialists. On the fringes there are "true" socialists and
> capitalists who stick to their faith, but they are an ever smaller minority.
Excellent points... in an excellent post.
I think you can expand what you are saying beyond the economic confines in
which you speak.
The competing values in society are always "liberty", "life" (emboding
"quality"... such as the virtuous life, etc.), and "equality". These
principles apply to both economic and social issues.
I tend to view most economic issues with a preference toward liberty...
whereas on social issues I value "life" more than "liberty" interests.
But it's never a hard and fast rule that one can apply to any given situation.
Sure we can say generally that we are for increased competition in the public
school system, but maybe there are instances in which I think equality
arguments outweigh liberty (freedom of choice) concerns.
Of course, these constructs may be my own "security blanket" terms to justify
how I can claim to be a conservative but support Affirmative Action (excluding
racial quotas/preferences). Who knows...
> Now, we if we ditch these vague, extreme terms, then we need to come up with
> something different than just "mixed" to reflect all the variations within,
> and something by which we can compare and assess the different sorts of
> systems and proposals which exist. So far, most people seem to argue either
> on ideological faith, or an issue by issue approach to current events.
I think it's mostly a combination of the two... It parallels moral
arguments... I'm a Kantian, so I am guided by the categorical imperatives I
construct... but that doesn't determine how I will view the morality of any
particular action.
> Maybe
> new, imaginative thinking is called for.
I thought that's what the tv set was for? =)
> cheers, scott
I'm sure I'll be regretting this later on, but at least in this post you speak
the truth and do so eloquently. =)
Very truly yours,
Ron
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Scott D. Erb
>Except when the Socialists were using the nationalist Freikorps to suppress
>the Spartacist uprising of Berlin in 1920.
> Lemme guess: you're gonna try to
>weasel out of this because technically the Freikorps weren't officially part
>of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, even though their membership
>did overlap, they shared the same goals & methods, & the Freikorps were the
>model for the Sturm Abteilungen.
Tim, you just plain don't know what you're talking about. In the chaotic days
of 1920, the Nazis weren't even a blip on the screen, and the freikorps had
not yet assumed their paramilitary menace (indeed, many saw them as keepers of
the peace in a chaotic post-war period). That changed quickly, of course,
especially when the Nazis started their right wing movement.
However, readers tempted to take Tim's twisted rhetoric seriously, I'd suggest
again "The Weimar Republic" by Detlev Peukert. He points out that the SPD
erred in working with the freikorps of "dubious political coloration," and
thus pushed the KPD towards an extreme. None of this, of course, fits with
Tim's ideology-driven attempt to put the SPD and Nazis in the same camp.
You lose again, Tim.
Scott D. Erb
In article <timstarr...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>>Are you saying that Funderburk and Thobaben, and Leon Baradat, respected
>>scholars, are liars?
>
>No, I'm saying that you're a liar, & that your endorsement of them in the
>absence of any detailed evidence from them isn't enough to persuade me that
>it would be profitable to look them up.
Wow, that's really stretching an ad hominem Tim. Because of an attack on my
person (saying I'm a liar), you say the arguments of other people, respected
scholars and academicians, aren't worth considering.
That is the most bizarre use of argumentum ad hominem I've ever seen!
However, I'm not endorsing them. I'm simply pointing out that they are very
respected scholars (you can check that up if you think I'm lying), and they
wrote respected books (again, check that for yourself if you think I'm lying),
and they have conclusions different than yours.
Readers realize you're trying to hide from having to deal with authorities in
the field who contradict your particular ideological faith.
You fool no one Tim; your ad hominems have no sting.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
>To reset the context, the Professor of Lies claimed that Ian Goddard had
>admitted that the theory that TWA800 was shot down by a Navy missile was
>a "hoax." Here's what Goddard himself has to say about it:
>
>"In an ill-fated effort to escape universal
>mass-media misrepresentation and threats of
>physical violence, I retracted my TWA 800
>theory and offered an apology to all my
>research wrongfully accused (which excludes
>all it rightfully accused). But rather than
>let up on me, the GovtMedia gunned down the
>man with a surrender flag by portraying this
>as an admission that my theory was a hoax,
>even after I told CNN it was NO HOAX!"
> - http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hoax.htm
(snicker)
Goddard admitted that he was just trying to make the government look bad.
Then when his allies started getting on his case, he made that lame attempt to
rationalize.
It's easy to see how someone like that could be a hero to a sophist like Tim,
who hates government and will engage in any dishonest rhetorical scheme and
attack to promote his anti-government agenda.
cheers, scott
Dan Clore
David Friedman wrote:
> Dan Clore, or possibly someone else earlier in the thread, wrote:
It was me.
> >In any case you're still trying to distract attention away from the fact
> >that Lenin and Castro were both capitalists...
>
> Isn't the problem here that "capitalist" and "socialist" are not really
> parallel terms? "Socialist" means a believer in socialism, "capitalist"
> means someone playing a particular role in capitalism--living off his
> capital. The correct parallelism is (roughly) socialist/classical liberal,
> commissar/capitalist. Thus, whatever Lenin and Castro were, Engels (if I
> correctly remember the relevant history) was both a capitalist and a
> socialist.
Actually this isn't a problem. Lenin & Castro both described their
systems as "state capitalist". So they were "capitalists" in the sense
of someone advocating capitalism. The equivocation in the word
"capitalist" isn't a problem here, unlike so many other debates on these
fora.
--
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Clore
The Website of Lord Weÿrdgliffe:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/index.html
Welcome to the Waughters....
The Dan Clore Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/necpage.htm
Because the true mysteries cannot be profaned....
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!"
James A. donald
--
On Fri, 08 May 1998 07:36:36 GMT, Dan Clore
<cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote:
> What a remarkable job you've done clearing that up for us,
> Tim! -- I never realized it before, but not only am *I* not
> a socialist, I don't even *know* any!
So says the same Dan Clore who repeatedly cited the claims of Vickery
and Kiernan (claims now explicitly disowned by Kiernan and implicitly
disowned by Vickery) that the killings by the Khmer Rouge were not by
the Khmer Rouge, but were rather spontaneous revenge killings by newly
liberated peasants against their former oppressors.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
NXrwptFOKe40nOOZ5p8zCijP4qeTW+WoLRF/ITnj
413ig3aISVMwZBcay+MIRrSGBf15FHSIqbk3O9Etp
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Tim Starr
In article <6j87du$i8c$5...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, the Professor of Lies,
>
>>To reset the context, the Professor of Lies claimed that Ian Goddard had
>>admitted that the theory that TWA800 was shot down by a Navy missile was
>>a "hoax." Here's what Goddard himself has to say about it:
>>
>>"In an ill-fated effort to escape universal
>>mass-media misrepresentation and threats of
>>physical violence, I retracted my TWA 800
>>theory and offered an apology to all my
>>research wrongfully accused (which excludes
>>all it rightfully accused). But rather than
>>let up on me, the GovtMedia gunned down the
>>man with a surrender flag by portraying this
>>as an admission that my theory was a hoax,
>>even after I told CNN it was NO HOAX!"
>> - http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hoax.htm
>
>(snicker)
>
>Goddard admitted that he was just trying to make the government look bad.
>Then when his allies started getting on his case, he made that lame attempt to
>rationalize.
The key point is that he never admitted that his theory was at all a hoax.
That was a lie made up by his critics which the Professor of Lies has merely
parrotted.
>It's easy to see how someone like that could be a hero to a sophist like Tim,
>who hates government and will engage in any dishonest rhetorical scheme and
>attack to promote his anti-government agenda.
As usual, the Professor of Lies is lying like a moth-eaten rug. Goddard's no
hero of mine, I actually think he's a bit too obsessed with this issue, which
I find uninteresting. But that's not enough for me to tolerate lies like the
one that he allegedly admitted that his theories were a hoax made up to smear
the government.
By parroting that lie, the Professor of Lies is embracing lying as a means
of defending his pro-government extremist agenda. I admit that my agenda is
the opposite, as is Goddard's, but neither of us has ever been willing to lie
in that cause AFAIK.
Tim Starr
In article <6j874u$i8c$3...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, the Professor of Lies,
>
>>Except when the Socialists were using the nationalist Freikorps to suppress
>>the Spartacist uprising of Berlin in 1920.
>> Lemme guess: you're gonna try to
>>weasel out of this because technically the Freikorps weren't officially part
>>of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, even though their membership
>>did overlap, they shared the same goals & methods, & the Freikorps were the
>>model for the Sturm Abteilungen.
>
>Tim, you just plain don't know what you're talking about.
Sure I didn't, Professor of Lies.
>In the chaotic days of 1920, the Nazis weren't even a blip on the screen...
I never asserted otherwise. The implication that I did is yet another lie
from the Professor of Lies.
>and the freikorps had not yet assumed their paramilitary menace (indeed,
>many saw them as keepers of the peace in a chaotic post-war period).
Right after the cowardly Social Democrats let the Freikorps do their dirty
work of defeating the commies, there was a military revolt led by Wolfgang
Kapp. That was an attempted military coup, none of whose perpetrators were
ever caught & punished by the Social Democrats. Then the commies rose again,
giving the German military the chance to make itself look good again by
suppressing the commies, even though half of it had supported Kapp.
Your original claim was that the Social Democrats had "stood up against" the
commies & Nazis. In fact, they were too cowardly to fight the commies, so
they brought in the Freikorps to do it for them the first time, then let the
participants in the Kapp revolt redeem themselves by putting down the second
commie uprising.
>That changed quickly, of course, especially when the Nazis started their
>right wing movement.
It changed immediately afterwards, when Kapp tried his putsch. The Nazis just
followed in the footsteps of Kapp & the freikorps, who got all their popular
support thanks to the cowardice of the Social Democrats in the face of the
armed commie uprising.
>However, readers tempted to take Tim's twisted rhetoric seriously, I'd suggest
>again "The Weimar Republic" by Detlev Peukert. He points out that the SPD
>erred in working with the freikorps of "dubious political coloration,"...
Thus contradicting the previous claim by the Professor of Lies that the SPD
had "stood up against" the commies.
>and thus pushed the KPD towards an extreme.
They didn't need any pushing, they were aching to start liquidating the
bourgeoisie, Lenin-style. Nice of him to try to divert blame from the SPD
& the commies by blaming the commies' crimes on the freikorps - the only ones
who had the courage to take up arms against the commies.
>None of this, of course, fits with Tim's ideology-driven attempt to put the
>SPD and Nazis in the same camp.
Still lying like a moth-eaten rug, I see. The Professor of Lies claimed that
the German Social Democrats NEVER cooperated with either the Commies or the
Nazis in Weimar Germany, that they were the only ones who "stood up against"
both the totalitarians of the Left & Right.
I have proven these false beyond all possible doubt. The Social Democrats
were too cowardly to take it upon themselves to suppress the Spartacist
revolt, so the SPD let the freikorps do the dirty work of suppressing their
erstwhile ideological comrades. Thus, they forfeited their political
leadership to the right-wing nationalists of the military, whom Hitler turned
into an effective mass movement capable of getting elected democratically
under the Weimar Constitution.
Tim Starr
In article <6j879n$i8c$4...@sol.caps.maine.edu>, the Professor of Lies,
>
>>>Are you saying that Funderburk and Thobaben, and Leon Baradat, respected
>>>scholars, are liars?
>>
>>No, I'm saying that you're a liar, & that your endorsement of them in the
>>absence of any detailed evidence from them isn't enough to persuade me that
>>it would be profitable to look them up.
>
>Wow, that's really stretching an ad hominem Tim. Because of an attack on my
>person (saying I'm a liar), you say the arguments of other people, respected
>scholars and academicians, aren't worth considering.
In their own light, they may well be worth considering, but not because they
they were reccomended by the Professor of Lies.
>That is the most bizarre use of argumentum ad hominem I've ever seen!
Circumstantial & justified, nothing bizarre about it.
>However, I'm not endorsing them. I'm simply pointing out that they are very
>respected scholars (you can check that up if you think I'm lying), and they
>wrote respected books (again, check that for yourself if you think I'm lying),
>and they have conclusions different than yours.
Great big argument from authority.
>Readers realize you're trying to hide from having to deal with authorities in
>the field who contradict your particular ideological faith.
If they want to come argue with me, I'll be happy to give them a fair hearing.
James A. donald
--
n 11 May 1998 23:16:43 GMT, scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb)
wrote:
> Are you saying that Funderburk and Thobaben, and Leon
> Baradat, respected scholars, are liars?
Are you saying that reputable scholars support your claims?
If so, cite them on a particular page of a particular book suporting a
particular claim.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
PBiTauVFbQM3UfDoUOJ30/p73igMHsQIMpcSxsdV
4Kd6vOOuXD0sNNpn1FadPTp5tntFVU9tR6BXzCfiB
Ian Goddard
scot...@maine.maine.edu (Scott D. Erb) wrote:
>In article <timstarrE...@netcom.com>, tims...@netcom.com says...
>>>Oh, even the guy who spread the story admits it was a hoax designed
>>>just to make government look bad.
>
>>Lie. "The guy" is Ian Goddard, who said no such thing. He was
>>misrepresented
>Yeah, right, Tim...keep that propaganda and sophistry flowing!
>
>Rationalize! Explain everything away until it fits your world view.
IAN: Tim is correct, I never said anything was a hoax,
and I didn't even originate the Navy missile theory,
as myriad media sources have fraudulently claimed.
For a period I decided to counter the Navy missile
theory and critique myself as a self-test protocol
prior to backing out of the case to save my life.
During that time I said that I pursued the TWA 800
case to give the govt a black eye, which was not
meant to imply I told a lie to give the govt a
black eye. CNN took that quote and said on TV
that I said the USN-TWA theory was a hoax.
That statement was written a month or so prior
to CNN's frame-up and posted to a small list.
When the CNN reporter (who I knew and trusted
from previous talks) contacted me, the first
thing she asked was if that post was an admis-
sion of that I made it up. I immediately said
no and pointed out the part of the post that
would disprove such a reading of it and noted
that omitting that portion would give a false
impression. So what did CNN do? After answer-
ing that question we spoke for many hours and
there was no impression at all that there was
reason to assume I said anything was a hoax.
I could not believe it when I saw the news.
Consider, what would the hoax be? All my re-
ports make only as many claims as there are
references to mainstream media reports. If
nothing I say was made up by me, what could
the hoax be and why would I admit to such?
The only hoax was CNN's claim that I said
anything was a hoax. In the person's favor
here who said I said that, they were lied
to by CNN... I also used to believe CNN.
http://www.erols.com/igoddard/journal.htm
********************************************************
Visit Ian W Goddard ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________
Statements T r u t h A defines -A
a -A defines A
A: x is A b A -A
l T F A set is defined
-A: x is -A e F T by its members, thus
? ? A & -A contain each other.
--------------------------------------------------------
H O L I S M ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
________________________________________________________
Scott D. Erb
> Professor of Lies.
>Professor of Lies.
> Professor of Lies
>Still lying like a moth-eaten rug,
> The Professor of Lies c
Personal abuse from Tim still. Sigh.
>I have proven these false beyond all possible doubt.
ROTFL! No, Tim, you have only proven you are ignorant about German history,
and made stupid assertions which do not connect with your evidence, which is
an unsubstantiated interpretation of a few historical events. You see the
world through ideologically-colored glasses, defining everything by your own
simplistic and (I believe) fundamentally flawed world view. To try to spread
that gospel with a mix of lies, sophistry, and personal abuse of anyone who
disagrees with you. I feel sorry for you.
cheers, scott
Scott D. Erb
Sorry, Tim, your style of repeated personal abuse and assertions en lieu of
arguments is ineffective. You've been outted as a sophist, as a propagandist,
and a person trying to promote faith in a belief system rather than wanting to
discuss issues honestly. Readers can decide.
Scott D. Erb
>>Wow, that's really stretching an ad hominem Tim. Because of an attack on my
>>person (saying I'm a liar), you say the arguments of other people, respected
>>scholars and academicians, aren't worth considering.
....
>Great big argument from authority.
You have no basis in arguing that other people make logical errors when you
never even make an argument. Everytime you are caught in an error, you
say something akin to "no, it wasn't an argument, I was just making
assertions." You fear debate because your goal is propaganda and promoting
your ideological faith, and you feel justified to name calling and attempts at
character assassination at anyone who dares disagree with you, since you KNOW
you have the TRUTH, and you are on a mission to spread it (I believe you once
said you are trying to spread those mimes or something).
I've been advised by people, including libertarians (and I have had useful
discussions with honest and friendly libertarians), to just drop this debate,
because you aren't taken seriously anyway. Perhaps I should. But if I do,
please be advised that every now and then I'll jump into your debates and take
apart your posts to show the fallacies, lies, and sophistry in your tactics.
You'd best be on your toes. However, I'm not quite done with you in these
threads.
Rob Robertson
Scott D. Erb wrote:
>
> In article <355773...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
>
> > I feel the same, but from my point of view, my country, my *kids'* country,
> >is coming apart at the seams. The Federal government is unaccountable for
> >*anything*, and it seems that every other day brings news about some other
> >rights being destroyed.
>
> OK, let's think about this. First, I'll grant you a lot of what you say in
> terms of the need to increase accountability. But try looking things not in
> the worst light (you seem to assume conspiracy theories are true), and also
> look at things in a comparative light (look at other places and the past).
> When you do that, it seems that things are not so bad here, and indeed there
> is hope. We have struggled to form a constitutional democracy, we can vote,
> we can express our opinions (online, on the street corner), act politically,
> and bring about change. That's something!
"It could be a lot worse" - is *that* your justification? You know, I just
read the Scotty and Timmy show, and I barely had the desire to respond to
you after what I'd read, but for the sake of completeness, I'll continue,...
> > *That* is why I get emotional and angry, and in my
> >view you and the weasels are helping to destroy this country by dismissing
> >serious injustices as 'conspiracy theories' and such.
>
> Well, perhaps I do get dismissive too quickly, but a lot of that is due to the
> type of abuse people like Billy Beck and Michael Schneider heep on everyone
> who disagrees with them. They draw that kind of response; indeed, I think
> that's their intent.
Some people view it as hyperbole, others see it as speaking the plain,
unvarnished truth. I'm in the latter group, and I'd take the word of
Mike or Billy over *your* disingenuous dissembling any day, Scott.
> > I had the TV on when the news of TWA 800 first broke; I can still
> >recall the live footage of the burning wreckage on the water, and
> >hearing eyewitnesses comment on seeing 'a streak of light', 'a flare',
This is exactly the kind of punk bullshit that points you up as a fraud,
Erb. You snip the bulk of my comment with only the weakest of responses,
as you did below,...
<post restored>
> >'fireworks', rising from the water just before the aircraft exploded.
> >"Oh man, someone took that plane out with a missile" was my first
> >thought, and *every* turn of that case reinforced that idea, whether
> >it was Navy divers escorting New York City police divers *out* of
> >the crash area, the Russell memo, articles in Aviation Week & Space
> >Technology, etc,...
> > Yeah, it pretty certainly was an accident. The Navy accidently blew
> >up a jetliner with 230 innocent people on board. *That* is what makes
> >that case so interesting, Scott, and it's also why you cannot accept
> >that it's true; there are no 'white separatists' or 'religious fanatics'
> >to cloud the issue here. That case comes right on down to *us*, Scott,
> >to anybody who's ever flown on a plane hoping that they'll come back
> >in one piece. You simply can't afford that kind of cognitive dissonance,
> >to believe that the White House could orchestrate a cover-up of the
> >killing of innocent people, because that would undermine the entire
> >house of cards that you've constructed by supporting this criminal
> >regime.
> Oh, even the guy who spread the story admits it was a hoax designed just to
> make government look bad.
...and even at that, it's a disingenuous 'shading' of the truth, as Tim
has already explained, and Ian Goddard has chimed in as well. What I wrote
had *nothing* to do with Goddard's assertions, and I provided references
for my views, all of which you deleted and dodged. I was playing straight-up
with you *again* Erb, and you immediately remind me of how foolish that
tactic is with you. Fool me a dozen times, shame on me,...
Did you even *look* at the article I mentioned in AW&ST?
I see no reason why the government would want
> Koresh and everyone to die at Waco, it's obviously an error and the FBI in
> later standoffs seems to have learned and not repeated those mistakes.
And what of the surviving Branch Davidians? What of the Federal agents
who did the shooting, gassing, and burning? Is it just "lesson learned,
let bygones be bygones"? Waco was and *is* a mockery of justice in America.
> It's also interesting how you dismiss experts from many sources in order to go
> with your whims. That doesn't seem too persuasive to me, at least given how
> the situation now is understood. I mean you'd need a vast conspiracy for
> that, involving many people out of government. I don't think that's possible.
I swear, if you start in on 'negative rhetoric', I'm going to start posting
in all caps.
> > I'm tellin' ya, Scott, get disillusioned early and beat the rush,
> >because the curtain is coming down fast.
>
> Well, time will tell, I guess. But at the very least I agree that government
> should be made more accountable, and that secrecy in military and law
> enforcement, etc. should be ended, with more open to the public. I can agree
> on those practical measures, even as I am unpersuaded by you about the causes
> of some of these events.
Well I don't want time to tell me whether I'm right or wrong, because
I don't want my kids to be the ones to have to pay that bill. I just
don't believe a word you say, Scott, and I want to find out *NOW*
about what the hell is happening in this country.
> cheers, scott
Bye,
Rob Robertson
Scott D. Erb
In article <355880...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
> "It could be a lot worse" - is *that* your justification?
More than that, in a comparative perspective we're doing as well as any system
both past and present. Perfection is something we have yet to attain, and may
never attain, yet I think constitutional democracy is the right path.
> Some people view it as hyperbole, others see it as speaking the plain,
>unvarnished truth. I'm in the latter group, and I'd take the word of
>Mike or Billy over *your* disingenuous dissembling any day, Scott.
That hardly surprises me, however, it seems you have a fear of any view
contrary to your own. And if you accept character attacks and name calling
over real discussion (as is their wont), then you are also making sure that
you and your views will stay marginalized and irrelevant. To try to change
things, you have to play the game a bit. You have to recognize that people
with different opinions can be honest and intelligent, but simply not
interpret the evidence the same way you do. And note that their style of
personal attacks and pseudo-threats simply makes them look bizarre and a bit
looney. It appears to me to be an attempt to promote anti-government
propaganda, sacrificing truth in the process. I find that immoral.
(deletions)
> This is exactly the kind of punk bullshit that points you up as a fraud,
>Erb. You snip the bulk of my comment with only the weakest of responses,
>as you did below,...
You went on and on with your reaction to things, and I simply noted I found it
unpersuasive. It seems you can't stand it when people don't agree with you.
That is your problem, not mine.
(deletions)
> I swear, if you start in on 'negative rhetoric', I'm going to start posting
>in all caps.
I make a very valid point: you would need some kind of vast conspiracy
involving a lot of people from outside government and all over to make
possible what you believe to be true. I find that very unconvincing.
> Well I don't want time to tell me whether I'm right or wrong, because
>I don't want my kids to be the ones to have to pay that bill. I just
>don't believe a word you say, Scott, and I want to find out *NOW*
>about what the hell is happening in this country.
You already have your beliefs, and nothing will dissuade you.
But life goes on, and you have to deal with it. You also have to deal with
the fact that most of us just aren't persuaded by your theories and claims.
Sorry if that hurts your feelings. Now I have book chapters to work on,
papers to grade, and real things to worry about. See ya around.
cheers, scott
Rob Robertson
Scott D. Erb wrote:
> You went on and on with your reaction to things, and I simply-
Yeah, you simply deleted what you were too afraid to face.
Noted.
_
Rob Robertson
Scott Erb
Just a note to add to my last post...check out Calvin Trillin's column in
Time this week on Dan Burton. As he ridiculed Burton's shooting of
pumpkins in his back yard to try to find proof that Foster didn't commit
suicide, Trillin noted that Burton didn't realize he would look so
ridiculous because most people other than Burton have stuff in their heads
much different than what's in a pumpkin.
I had to think of Billy and his melon example.
That sort of thing makes me convinced that most of these conspiracy
theorists are, like Billy, just anarchists who use any means possible to
spread stories to cause distrust of the government.
Scott Erb
In article <355893...@gte.com>, rr...@gte.com says...
Fear, Rob? Why would I be afraid to face that if I thought it were at all
persuasive? Rather, I find it boring and unpersuasive, and a waste of time
to deal with. My only concern is truth and knowledge. That's why I'm a
teacher. That's why I refuse to carry grudges and will engage in honest
conversation with anyone, no matter how abusive they may be, shows a
willingness to do so, and wishes to converse on something which is worth my
while. I'm just sorry that we disagree on the usefulness of discussing
conspiracy theories held by a very small group which would require massive
coverups from people both in and out of government.
It just doesn't seem plausible to me. Sorry.
Billy Beck
TacRhet from the University of Maine:
...as if I'm the one who originally set forth the evidence in the
case.
For an "empirical scientist", the ProfessorBoy is remarkably,
signally, inept to deal with the facts in evidence in the case at
issue. The *reasons* for this craven infirmity may be open to the
conjecture of some. In any case, the effect is clear enough in his
strictly off-the-rack characterizations crafted specially to *avoid*
his oft-touted "scientific" approach.
"Question authority," and especially when its proponants are as
busy lighting votive candles as Scott Erb is.
Billy
VRWC fronteer - sigdiv
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/free/essays.html