Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 14:32:54 +0800
From: Joel Ng <jngkj-AT-mbox2.singnet.com.sg>
Subject: Re: An Explosive End For Woodstock '99 (Burning and Looting)


"Mark S. Weiss" wrote:

> You would so hope. But don't count on it. Hell, in the public schools,
> they (the gangsters) certainly had their chance, but wisely chose not to
> exercise it. As a teacher, I stood up to about ten or so of these
> characters by telling them point-blank that they are looking at the guy
> who will deal with them on any basis.

You must be so brave, I'm proud of you.  They must have had an average age of, what,
14?  And a fat middle-aged public school teacher stood up to them!  Wow.  I'm so
proud of you.  Did I commend you on your bravery yet?

> Treat me with some respect, and
> you'll get a little yourself.

No thank you.  Nor do I want your respect.  Dip.

You obviously never had much contact with actual gangs.  Firstly, when they are
many, and you are one, you *give* respect first, and they ain't about to give you
any.  In the army, I was in charge of drivers, all of whom were conscripts with no
love for their country - many had triad connections and 2 were "big brothers" in
their respective gangs.  They were all pretty nice guys, but you had to reach them
at *their* culture, and not expect them to suddenly behave like you.  Nor did you
insist on respect.  You could only get it one way: by earning it.

> After facing off with their leader, I
> managed in one bold stroke to get him working for me. He took the lead
> role by telling his little ganstas that they had to go through him to
> "mess with me." Ok. I knew we were going to have fun that day. And we
> did! But the kids knew I
> was the teacher, even if sometimes in their own way!. I could have kept
> this lifestyle up but it clearly required too much energy, and for what
> purpose? So I quit teaching to do other work.

Well if you really had been successful, like you claimed, and those "little ganstas"
(average age 13 once you take out their leader) wouldn't have gone straight at you,
but through their leader.  They still got the better of you cos you quit your job.
I feel sorry for you, because you're just a failed capitalist wannabe who still
thinks that the "Founding Fathers" of the US actually gave two shits about you.
They owned slaves, remember?  Oh but that's ok in your philosophy.

> Their efforts to recruit me into their gang were cute, but only served
> to stimulate my suggestion that they join mine, which I then called a
> "civilized" gang.

Which implies that the millions of people who find association in "gangs" because
they are repressed by the rest of society are "uncivilised"?  Not only are you a
failed pathetic capitalist wannabe, you're a failed racist classist pathetic
capitalist wannabe.  Did your mother never kiss you good night when you went to
bed?  Does all this stem from an inborn desire for love you never got when you were
a child?

> However, I now sympathize with the kids in the sense
> that I think "semi-civilized" would have been a much more appropriate
> term since much good work remains to be done to promote a
> "hyper-civilized" state wherein the individual's rights are king (and
> not some tyrannical majority; that's where your "nettiquite" come in)
> where nobody (including the State) is allowed can act desicively against
> the true interests of the individual, which are chiefly to remain
> unfettered from the coercive control of the group in matters which only
> interest him- or her-self directly.

You don't want a "tyrannical majority" but you're preaching Zero-tolerance.  I hate
to break this to you, Zero-IQ, but "zero-tolerance" breeds a tyrannical majority
everywhere you go.  Have you ever read the textbook on zero-tolerance?  I think it's
called "Mein Kampf".

> An exceedingly small government whose nearly sole function (others have
> to do with external self-defense) is to deal with those cases where
> individuals over-step the bounds of acceptable behavior in the treatment
> of the property or person of another--this small government, is easily
> far superior to no government at all. And if one were to "claim to
> believe" that he or she really believes in no "state" of any kind,
> consider the local standards of behavior which develop under all
> circumstances. Do not norms of behavior which affect a local group of
> people in some sense act as the force of law? Yes, I would say. The real
> enemy is the ever-present impulse of the individual towards the
> pressures of groupthink. Go read the literature in social psychology on
> social conformity. So, on this very special list, which uniquely
> represents the creed that no state is better than any state, I beg to
> differ.

How bout you just beg that we pity you, turd?

> Exactly correct. "Zero Tolerance" is what I am talking about.
>
> > Go ahead and join the KKK. Thats where all the lynchers are.

And Jamal was exactly right about you, you stupid fascist fuck.