Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 20:06:50 +0100
From: Ze Sprout <anarchie-AT-buelinckx.net>
Subject: Re: tad kepley


At 01:13 -0500 19-03-2001, cowlick77-AT-aol.com wrote:
...

>
>aspiring demagogue, eh? i'm not the "anarchist". i guess i'm aspiring to your
>level, then. you say facts don't exist. is that a fact?

wow, do i detect some wit there or did you just steal this one too.

>
>"as far as addicts go: personal experience makes your sympathy grow very
>thin" you say. no one's asking for your sympathy, "especially when used as an
>argument or excuse for past actions". first off, i'm not tad, and if he chose
>to make "excuses" i imagine he would have done it by now. i don't think he's
>anything but open about his problems in the past; i read a long letter in
>anarchy in 93 or so that detailed it. yeah, it's impossible to imagine that
>someone would do something to stay well with anything but malice in their
>heart. you, of course, have too much self-respect, "intellect", and willpower
>to ever allow yourself to get caught up in opiate addiction.

personal experiences can mean a lot of things. but yes i do not have any respect for people who afterwards blame it on their addiction. and no i lack intellect as stated earlier. i'm not proud of it. but that doesn't mean i should allow people to use this against me.


> it's a shame you
>know yourself so little. how long could you hold your hand in the flame
>before you took the opportunity to jerk it out? enough said.

13 years.

erik