Comments on: Do You Believe in Liberty? http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/ Fri, 16 May 2008 18:48:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.3 by: Trollin Inshit http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-600488 Sat, 10 May 2008 16:17:51 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-600488 Look smart go to www.turdpottywatch.com. Look smart go to www.turdpottywatch.com.

]]>
by: Trollin Inshit http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-600229 Sat, 10 May 2008 08:03:19 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-600229 Don't have a pot to piss in? Go to turdpottywatch.com Don’t have a pot to piss in? Go to turdpottywatch.com

]]>
by: Paulie http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599911 Sat, 10 May 2008 00:01:42 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599911 <i># Alex Peak Says: May 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am Mr. Antman writes, “But I agree with Daniel Wiener that the tone of the piece is not what I’ve come to expect from Dr. Ruwart, and I don’t want to see it become her tone. And I don’t want the LP candidate, whoever they are, to campaign either for or against age-of-consent laws unless and until it is part of the LP Platform. The reason I support a comprehensive platform is so that candidates, activists, and new members have a basis for knowing the consensus of LP members on the various issues and can choose wisely in their advocacy for the party. “If asked their position on a disputed topic, activists should do exactly what I’ve seen Ruwart do repeatedly in the past, tell the questioner that libertarians disagree on the subject (and then provide a more complete answer, if it seems appropriate to do so and the activist has a strong personal opinion). Actually, she SAID that to open the chapter on children’s rights (as well as abortion and other difficult topics) in the 10-year-old book that has been so heavily discussed. “Children’s rights is still a hotly-debated issue among libertarians” remains a good first sentence of any answer to a questioner. “A supporter of Ruwart can disagree with her on the viability of common law principles for children’s rights, and not accept her view that market processes can provide legal and security services as effectively as they provide all other services. I don’t know any two libertarians who agree on all policy positions, unless one of them isn’t thinking.” I’m in complete agreement with you on these points. Cheers, Alex Peak </i> me too. # Alex Peak Says:
May 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am

Mr. Antman writes,

“But I agree with Daniel Wiener that the tone of the piece is not what I’ve come to expect from Dr. Ruwart, and I don’t want to see it become her tone. And I don’t want the LP candidate, whoever they are, to campaign either for or against age-of-consent laws unless and until it is part of the LP Platform. The reason I support a comprehensive platform is so that candidates, activists, and new members have a basis for knowing the consensus of LP members on the various issues and can choose wisely in their advocacy for the party.

“If asked their position on a disputed topic, activists should do exactly what I’ve seen Ruwart do repeatedly in the past, tell the questioner that libertarians disagree on the subject (and then provide a more complete answer, if it seems appropriate to do so and the activist has a strong personal opinion). Actually, she SAID that to open the chapter on children’s rights (as well as abortion and other difficult topics) in the 10-year-old book that has been so heavily discussed. “Children’s rights is still a hotly-debated issue among libertarians” remains a good first sentence of any answer to a questioner.

“A supporter of Ruwart can disagree with her on the viability of common law principles for children’s rights, and not accept her view that market processes can provide legal and security services as effectively as they provide all other services. I don’t know any two libertarians who agree on all policy positions, unless one of them isn’t thinking.”

I’m in complete agreement with you on these points.

Cheers,
Alex Peak

me too.

]]>
by: disinter http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599896 Fri, 09 May 2008 23:32:50 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599896 Meanwhile: "A man alleges that police entered his home illegally and ripped a catheter from his body during a child pornography investigation that led to the arrest of two neighbors." http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Conn_man_says_police_broke_into_hom_05092008.html Its fer da children! Meanwhile:

“A man alleges that police entered his home illegally and ripped a catheter from his body during a child pornography investigation that led to the arrest of two neighbors.”
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Conn_man_says_police_broke_into_hom_05092008.html

Its fer da children!

]]>
by: Paulie http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599890 Fri, 09 May 2008 23:18:25 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599890 <i>I know I get the impression from certain anarchists (but definitely only a minority thereof) on this blog that they would like to oust the minarchists. One screen name in particular pops to mind. </i> Whose? I know I get the impression from certain anarchists (but definitely only a minority thereof) on this blog that they would like to oust the minarchists. One screen name in particular pops to mind.

Whose?

]]>
by: Paulie http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599872 Fri, 09 May 2008 23:06:49 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599872 Unintentional irony dept.: # Holtz also has a 10 inch dick but you can’t see that either. # Steve LaBianca Says: May 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm Of course you don’t Mr. Holtz. Let’s see, this time I set a record. Unintentional irony dept.:

#

Holtz also has a 10 inch dick but you can’t see that either.

  1. Steve LaBianca Says:
    May 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pm

Of course you don’t Mr. Holtz. Let’s see, this time I set a record.

]]>
by: Balph Eubank http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599828 Fri, 09 May 2008 22:06:23 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599828 The proper title of Ruwart's response should be: "Do you believe in fairies?" Then again, the existence of fairies is more probably than the idea that a political party that advocates legal kiddie porn could get traction in the U.S. ---- But, given the nature of LP conventions, it is rather easy to believe in fairies, so... The proper title of Ruwart’s response should be: “Do you believe in fairies?”

Then again, the existence of fairies is more probably than the idea that a political party that advocates legal kiddie porn could get traction in the U.S.
——
But, given the nature of LP conventions, it is rather easy to believe in fairies, so…

]]>
by: mdh http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599826 Fri, 09 May 2008 22:05:14 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599826 I found this exceedingly well thought out. I do wish it'd come a wee bit sooner, but all in all, it said all of the things that I wanted to hear. The last thing the LP needs is a mud-slinging candidate. Many Libertarians were, in fact, Republicans before becoming Libertarians, but the simple fact remains that negative campaigns were something that should've been left behind. I found this exceedingly well thought out. I do wish it’d come a wee bit sooner, but all in all, it said all of the things that I wanted to hear.

The last thing the LP needs is a mud-slinging candidate. Many Libertarians were, in fact, Republicans before becoming Libertarians, but the simple fact remains that negative campaigns were something that should’ve been left behind.

]]>
by: Paulie http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599804 Fri, 09 May 2008 21:35:12 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599804 <i># Thomas L. Knapp Says: May 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm Paulie, You write: “She should stop focusing on reacting to mud thrown by other campaigns, and start making the issues she wants to focus on the center of attention.” I don’t think she so much “focused on reacting to mud” as she used the mud to make a strong statement on where she’s coming from and what her approach to issues will be. She managed to get the war on drugs, health care, gun control and foreign policy in there, and to articulate the case for becoming popular by choosing to be RIGHT as opposed to naively chasing after popularity for its own sake. L. Neil Smith’s shorter-winded and opposite-gendered rendition is “great men don’t move to the center. great men move the center.” The mud involved required her to reply at greater length, but she still managed to take an attack on her and on our party and turned into a stirring declaration of both principle and strategy for her and for our party. As far as being “reactive” goes, well, yes, that’s not the way you want to campaign all the time … but sometimes you have to take out the trash. She just bagged Wayne Allyn Root and set him on the curb for pickup. She’s called him a coward who hides behind children instead of protecting them because he’s scared shitless of giving Mrs. Grundy the vapors … and she did it convincingly. If Root gets up off the floor after this, he’s either an undead creature or the original glutton for punishment. </i> I don't think this essay has converted many, if any, members of the anti-Ruwart brigade or fence sitters. Thus, it merely contributes to the continuation of this sordid distraction, with possible additional rejoinders from Root/Starr and further responses from Ruwart, ad nauseum, no matter how well argued (and I agree that it is well argued). The proper tactic for Ruwart is to move on, regardless of whether her opponents do or do not. The longer this topic continues, and the more attention is paid to it, the greater the likelihood that it will come up during whatever media interviews whoever the LP nominates gets. That will be true regardless of whether that is Ruwart, Root, or someone else. # Thomas L. Knapp Says:
May 8th, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Paulie,

You write:

“She should stop focusing on reacting to mud thrown by other campaigns, and start making the issues she wants to focus on the center of attention.”

I don’t think she so much “focused on reacting to mud” as she used the mud to make a strong statement on where she’s coming from and what her approach to issues will be.

She managed to get the war on drugs, health care, gun control and foreign policy in there, and to articulate the case for becoming popular by choosing to be RIGHT as opposed to naively chasing after popularity for its own sake.

L. Neil Smith’s shorter-winded and opposite-gendered rendition is “great men don’t move to the center. great men move the center.” The mud involved required her to reply at greater length, but she still managed to take an attack on her and on our party and turned into a stirring declaration of both principle and strategy for her and for our party.

As far as being “reactive” goes, well, yes, that’s not the way you want to campaign all the time … but sometimes you have to take out the trash. She just bagged Wayne Allyn Root and set him on the curb for pickup. She’s called him a coward who hides behind children instead of protecting them because he’s scared shitless of giving Mrs. Grundy the vapors … and she did it convincingly. If Root gets up off the floor after this, he’s either an undead creature or the original glutton for punishment.

I don’t think this essay has converted many, if any, members of the anti-Ruwart brigade or fence sitters.

Thus, it merely contributes to the continuation of this sordid distraction, with possible additional rejoinders from Root/Starr and further responses from Ruwart, ad nauseum, no matter how well argued (and I agree that it is well argued).

The proper tactic for Ruwart is to move on, regardless of whether her opponents do or do not.

The longer this topic continues, and the more attention is paid to it, the greater the likelihood that it will come up during whatever media interviews whoever the LP nominates gets. That will be true regardless of whether that is Ruwart, Root, or someone else.

]]>
by: miche http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599660 Fri, 09 May 2008 18:57:57 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599660 I just want to point out that I heard some McCain junk on the news the other night- the issue was child porn. From <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm" rel="nofollow">his issues page</a>: <blockquote>John McCain believes the Internet offers tremendous promise in terms of freedom of expression, information sharing, and the spread of knowledge and commerce. It represents the greatest innovation of the modern era in terms of the democratization of free speech and access to information. From human rights groups in China to bloggers here in the United States, the Internet has opened a global dialogue that has propelled the world into an exciting new century of connectivity and communication. However, there is a darker side to the Internet. Along with the access and anonymity of the Internet have come those who would use it to peddle child pornography and other sexually explicit material and to prey upon children. John McCain has been a leader in pushing legislation through Congress that requires all schools and libraries receiving federal subsidies for Internet connectivity to utilize technology to restrict access to sexually explicit material by children using such computers. While the first line of defense for children will always be strong and involved parents, when they send their child to school or drop their child off at the library, parents have the right to feel safe that someone is going to be looking out for their children. Protecting Children from Online Predators America's most precious asset is its children. The innocence of childhood provides hope for the future and refreshes and restores the ideals of this great country. However, there are those who prey upon this innocence and the Internet offers these predators unprecedented, often anonymous, access to children. John McCain has taken a hard line against pedophiles that would use the Internet to prey upon children by proposing the first-of-its-kind national online registry for persons who have been convicted of sex crimes against children. Senator McCain's legislation requires that sex offenders register all online accounts in a national database that can be used by law enforcement to investigate crimes against children. If these predators fail to register they would be sent to prison for ten years. The legislation also makes use of the Internet an "aggravating factor" in sex crimes against children, adding an additional ten years to any conviction. It is the responsibility of government to do all that can be done to protect children from predators who lurk on the Internet. </blockquote> I just want to point out that I heard some McCain junk on the news the other night- the issue was child porn. From his issues page:

John McCain believes the Internet offers tremendous promise in terms of freedom of expression, information sharing, and the spread of knowledge and commerce. It represents the greatest innovation of the modern era in terms of the democratization of free speech and access to information. From human rights groups in China to bloggers here in the United States, the Internet has opened a global dialogue that has propelled the world into an exciting new century of connectivity and communication.

However, there is a darker side to the Internet. Along with the access and anonymity of the Internet have come those who would use it to peddle child pornography and other sexually explicit material and to prey upon children.

John McCain has been a leader in pushing legislation through Congress that requires all schools and libraries receiving federal subsidies for Internet connectivity to utilize technology to restrict access to sexually explicit material by children using such computers. While the first line of defense for children will always be strong and involved parents, when they send their child to school or drop their child off at the library, parents have the right to feel safe that someone is going to be looking out for their children.

Protecting Children from Online Predators

America’s most precious asset is its children. The innocence of childhood provides hope for the future and refreshes and restores the ideals of this great country. However, there are those who prey upon this innocence and the Internet offers these predators unprecedented, often anonymous, access to children. John McCain has taken a hard line against pedophiles that would use the Internet to prey upon children by proposing the first-of-its-kind national online registry for persons who have been convicted of sex crimes against children. Senator McCain’s legislation requires that sex offenders register all online accounts in a national database that can be used by law enforcement to investigate crimes against children. If these predators fail to register they would be sent to prison for ten years. The legislation also makes use of the Internet an “aggravating factor” in sex crimes against children, adding an additional ten years to any conviction. It is the responsibility of government to do all that can be done to protect children from predators who lurk on the Internet.

]]>
by: Justin Grover http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599646 Fri, 09 May 2008 18:42:42 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599646 Seebeck: I don't claim you are less intelligent based on how wrong/right you are, I would appreciate you didn't do the same to me (or anyone else). You came into this debate late in the game, and had nothing but ridicule for the people who disagreed. Some people were actually having a fairly civil debate on the issues. You and Ms. Ruwart can claim "personal attack" all you want- I'm not defending Root or his allies. The best you can come up with for my concerns, and others, is a combination of "Nu-uh" and "it can be assumed. . ." Neither of those points are valid. When you are faced with that, you and others revert to "it doesn't matter, anyway" followed swiftly by "Your personal attacks on this one person are tearing apart our movement/party/dreams." Questioning where someone stands on any issue is not a personal attack. No one here is claiming the comments on Barr/Gravel/Root/other "newcomer"s are "personal attacks." Threatening is coercion. Surely someone who is as learned as you claim to be should know this. I too was taught by nuns with _____ degrees. I was never taught that words on paper have different meaning than those that are spoken. How does one record the spoken word into text without changing the meaning then? Is every court reporter required to annotate a reminder somewhere on a deposition or court transcript a reminder to the reader that the words contained herein are to be taken only in their SPOKEN and not LITERARY context? You can claim to want to discuss the 'big issues' all you want but between combative people like yourself and a string of 'spokepersons' for the party who preach only anarchy our metaphorical train will continue to be barricaded in the station by people you rile up. Most people (that I have spoken to in the numerous outreach events we've done in the last 6 months) have no interest in listening to the philosophy, they want to hear the "How". Ms. Ruwart's "How" seems to be to preach the philosophy, a technique that has thus far failed. Most of our allies are single issue people, many of whom are turned off from being thus by the extremes of our philosophy. The last thing we need is someone as our 'standard bearer' who represents the most extreme of us. It hurts all of us. Seebeck:

I don’t claim you are less intelligent based on how wrong/right you are, I would appreciate you didn’t do the same to me (or anyone else).

You came into this debate late in the game, and had nothing but ridicule for the people who disagreed. Some people were actually having a fairly civil debate on the issues.

You and Ms. Ruwart can claim “personal attack” all you want- I’m not defending Root or his allies. The best you can come up with for my concerns, and others, is a combination of “Nu-uh” and “it can be assumed. . .” Neither of those points are valid. When you are faced with that, you and others revert to “it doesn’t matter, anyway” followed swiftly by “Your personal attacks on this one person are tearing apart our movement/party/dreams.” Questioning where someone stands on any issue is not a personal attack. No one here is claiming the comments on Barr/Gravel/Root/other “newcomer”s are “personal attacks.”

Threatening is coercion. Surely someone who is as learned as you claim to be should know this.

I too was taught by nuns with _ degrees. I was never taught that words on paper have different meaning than those that are spoken. How does one record the spoken word into text without changing the meaning then? Is every court reporter required to annotate a reminder somewhere on a deposition or court transcript a reminder to the reader that the words contained herein are to be taken only in their SPOKEN and not LITERARY context?

You can claim to want to discuss the ‘big issues’ all you want but between combative people like yourself and a string of ‘spokepersons’ for the party who preach only anarchy our metaphorical train will continue to be barricaded in the station by people you rile up.

Most people (that I have spoken to in the numerous outreach events we’ve done in the last 6 months) have no interest in listening to the philosophy, they want to hear the “How”.

Ms. Ruwart’s “How” seems to be to preach the philosophy, a technique that has thus far failed.

Most of our allies are single issue people, many of whom are turned off from being thus by the extremes of our philosophy. The last thing we need is someone as our ‘standard bearer’ who represents the most extreme of us.

It hurts all of us.

]]>
by: Michael Seebeck http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599596 Fri, 09 May 2008 18:06:10 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599596 I'm going to get off this thread with some final points for consideration: 1) Dr. Ruwart is responding to personal attacks made on her relating to her writing in "Short Answers". Those personal attacks are out of line, and she is justified in responding. 2) Had people actually simply criticzed the writing itself for errors, inconsistencies, logic problems, etc., then that would be completely fine. But it turned personal, and that was wrong. THAT is what I object to in her critics, that they were out of line in making it personal. Dan makes a great analysis above from an objective point of view without interjecting personal attacks in either direction but while expressing his own reactions. Thanks, Dan! 3) Considering the big picture of what is the crucial issues in this election cycle are, child porn is *not* one of them. Personally, as a father, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I don't look at the stuff, my kid doesn't participate in the stuff, and it's a non-issue to me. I hear this same bullshit on abortion, gay marriage, and a bunch of other low-tier issues that only serve to distract from the big picture. For America that picture is the War, and the Economy, as it always is. For the LP the picture is how to grow the party and build the membership, funds, and infrastructure we need to be the player we should be at all levels. For those of you discussing the Platform, that is (for now) a small part of that, undoubtedly (more on that below). But to get axle-wrapped over words in a book written ten years ago and then using that to engage in the Politics of Personal Destruction, well, that's just not the best way to do things, people! 4) The ultimate goal is supposed to be Liberty in Our Lifetimes. So tell me, *YTF* are we complaining about the type of train to use to get to Minarchist Oakland or Anarchist San Francisco, or which of those to stop at, when we're still in Statist New York City's Grand Central Station???? Shouldn't that be a concern for when the train gets into California and not sooner? This is why I don't get mixed up in that debate, people. IT DOESN'T MATTER AT THIS POINT! What matters is that we all get the train moving down the tracks. It's been stuck in the station for 37 years. Time to blow the whistle and start the diesel and get moving! I’m going to get off this thread with some final points for consideration:

1) Dr. Ruwart is responding to personal attacks made on her relating to her writing in “Short Answers”. Those personal attacks are out of line, and she is justified in responding.
2) Had people actually simply criticzed the writing itself for errors, inconsistencies, logic problems, etc., then that would be completely fine. But it turned personal, and that was wrong. THAT is what I object to in her critics, that they were out of line in making it personal. Dan makes a great analysis above from an objective point of view without interjecting personal attacks in either direction but while expressing his own reactions. Thanks, Dan!
3) Considering the big picture of what is the crucial issues in this election cycle are, child porn is not one of them. Personally, as a father, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I don’t look at the stuff, my kid doesn’t participate in the stuff, and it’s a non-issue to me. I hear this same bullshit on abortion, gay marriage, and a bunch of other low-tier issues that only serve to distract from the big picture. For America that picture is the War, and the Economy, as it always is. For the LP the picture is how to grow the party and build the membership, funds, and infrastructure we need to be the player we should be at all levels. For those of you discussing the Platform, that is (for now) a small part of that, undoubtedly (more on that below). But to get axle-wrapped over words in a book written ten years ago and then using that to engage in the Politics of Personal Destruction, well, that’s just not the best way to do things, people!
4) The ultimate goal is supposed to be Liberty in Our Lifetimes. So tell me, YTF are we complaining about the type of train to use to get to Minarchist Oakland or Anarchist San Francisco, or which of those to stop at, when we’re still in Statist New York City’s Grand Central Station???? Shouldn’t that be a concern for when the train gets into California and not sooner? This is why I don’t get mixed up in that debate, people. IT DOESN’T MATTER AT THIS POINT! What matters is that we all get the train moving down the tracks. It’s been stuck in the station for 37 years. Time to blow the whistle and start the diesel and get moving!

]]>
by: Brian Holtz http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599583 Fri, 09 May 2008 17:49:05 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599583 Steve LaBianca, I already demonstrated how your seventh paragraph was a strawman not derived from the quote you gave. If you claim that the six other paragraphs weren't strawmen, then quote me or the Reform Caucus actually saying what you claim we believe. You can't. And so you won't even try. Steve LaBianca, I already demonstrated how your seventh paragraph was a strawman not derived from the quote you gave. If you claim that the six other paragraphs weren’t strawmen, then quote me or the Reform Caucus actually saying what you claim we believe. You can’t. And so you won’t even try.

]]>
by: Michael Seebeck http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599578 Fri, 09 May 2008 17:39:42 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599578 Yawn. Justin, we're just going to have to agree that your words here indicate that you're wrong and move on. You can nitpick and spin all you want, but the fact remains that you are going to read and see what you want and then jump to erroneous conclusions from that versus what is actually there. But I'll leave you to ponder these points: 1) Saying what someone *can* do is not a threat. Saying what someone *will* do is a threat. You should understand that difference, since it's the concept of Free Speech vs. Fighting Words. 2) I learned English from nuns with doctorartes in that language, Latin, Greek, Persian, and Hebrew, meaning the langauge and its roots. I know what a preface is in both the literary and oral contexts, and the differences between them. You seem to not, as evidenced by your constant ability to conflate the two here. 3) Ruwart was defending herself against attacks made on her by individuals, such as yourself, who cannot tell the difference between the words put in the "How-to" book that "Short Answers" actually is versus the words put in the "Opinion" book that "Healing" actually is. The fact is, that crucial difference was lost on almost everybody. Had people simply criticized the answer as being insufficient or lacking in a detail, that's one thing that could be justified, but instead, people, you included, turned that into personal attacks on her character, and that's out of line. I'm sorry if you are not versed enough in different types of writings or proper discussion of such to tell the difference. And you namecall me illiterate when you illustrate here with your own words that you can't even tell types of writings apart, which is something taught in junior-high school? 4) Jury nullification is legal in all jurisdictions since the Brailsford ruling is BINDING on all jurisdictions, until such time as SCOTUS overturns it (and they haven't!), and any lower-level rulings to the contrary are null and void per Marbury. To claim lower jurisdictions have said no, without citing any sources, and without undertsanding the binding precedents, is a fallacious act. 5) There's a difference between telling someone that they are acting stupid and that they are stupid. The former criticizes actions. The latter is namecalling. You should not conflate those two things either, since they are rather obviously not the same thing. You, here, are _acting_ stupid. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a Style Committee report to write for the California Bylaws... Yawn. Justin, we’re just going to have to agree that your words here indicate that you’re wrong and move on. You can nitpick and spin all you want, but the fact remains that you are going to read and see what you want and then jump to erroneous conclusions from that versus what is actually there.

But I’ll leave you to ponder these points:
1) Saying what someone can do is not a threat. Saying what someone will do is a threat. You should understand that difference, since it’s the concept of Free Speech vs. Fighting Words.
2) I learned English from nuns with doctorartes in that language, Latin, Greek, Persian, and Hebrew, meaning the langauge and its roots. I know what a preface is in both the literary and oral contexts, and the differences between them. You seem to not, as evidenced by your constant ability to conflate the two here.
3) Ruwart was defending herself against attacks made on her by individuals, such as yourself, who cannot tell the difference between the words put in the “How-to” book that “Short Answers” actually is versus the words put in the “Opinion” book that “Healing” actually is. The fact is, that crucial difference was lost on almost everybody. Had people simply criticized the answer as being insufficient or lacking in a detail, that’s one thing that could be justified, but instead, people, you included, turned that into personal attacks on her character, and that’s out of line. I’m sorry if you are not versed enough in different types of writings or proper discussion of such to tell the difference. And you namecall me illiterate when you illustrate here with your own words that you can’t even tell types of writings apart, which is something taught in junior-high school?
4) Jury nullification is legal in all jurisdictions since the Brailsford ruling is BINDING on all jurisdictions, until such time as SCOTUS overturns it (and they haven’t!), and any lower-level rulings to the contrary are null and void per Marbury. To claim lower jurisdictions have said no, without citing any sources, and without undertsanding the binding precedents, is a fallacious act.
5) There’s a difference between telling someone that they are acting stupid and that they are stupid. The former criticizes actions. The latter is namecalling. You should not conflate those two things either, since they are rather obviously not the same thing. You, here, are acting stupid.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a Style Committee report to write for the California Bylaws…

]]>
by: Steve LaBianca http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599561 Fri, 09 May 2008 17:23:35 +0000 http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/05/08/do-you-believe-in-liberty/#comment-599561 I guess that if the "committee" didn't use an alias, and told us just who he or she is, maybe it would go without saying, just how much validity the claim of "a whole lot" disagree holds. I also guess that THAT is why aliases are used. I guess that if the “committee” didn’t use an alias, and told us just who he or she is, maybe it would go without saying, just how much validity the claim of “a whole lot” disagree holds.

I also guess that THAT is why aliases are used.

]]>