Date: Sun, 06 Oct 2002 21:27:52 -0500
From: danceswithcarp <dcombs-AT-bloomington.in.us>
Subject: Re: palestinian anarchy 


At 06:34 PM 10/6/02 -0700, Maldoror wrote:

>i'm finding there are some decent ppl here including
>yourself, but i think you, like many others, miss the
>point that this guy started making personal attacks at
>me off-list and chooses to continue it on-list when i
>was nothing but cordial to him in the beginning.

No, malodorous, you are simply lying here.  This becomes none of us.   To 
wit, you posted that screed about the U$ president passing laws and I 
responded, ON-LIST,

 > "Um, not that it matters, but the U$ president doesn't pass laws. So 
could you clear this up a bit so we can be confused about what it is > 
you're really saying?"

Then you responded, OFF-LIST

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Maldoror wrote:

 > you know what, forget it. i don't know what the fuck i
 > ever did to you but you don't need to be such a
 > fucking obnoxious asshole.

Hmmm.  I go from asking for a clarification to being an "obnoxious asshole" 
in one post?   And you say *I'M* the one with my undies in a bunch, that 
you were "cordial?"   HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Okay, kid, now we've established that you lie.   So are you going to stop, 
or are you going to continue?


>i don't know anyone on this list, therefore i have no
>reason to be rude to anyone and this guy launched an
>all out assault on me because i made a mistake.

Man, a thin-skinned anarchist.   So what are you going to do when things 
_really_ get tough?

>there
>is no call for that at all. it's like somebody new
>walks into a room and some guy just walks up to you
>and throws wine on you because trippedon the rug. is
>that any way to treat someone, let alone some one you
>don't know?

I don't know.  I'm a "fucking obnoxious asshole?"  Because you are a lazy 
writer?  Giving alms to the poor must make you so, so, well, radical.


>i refuse to let some guy continue to spit on me and
>make assinine generalizations about me ('oh you must
>wear brand name clothes')and subjects (palestine) he
>obviously has no idea about. if that's being uptight
>so be it. i have no problems with any of the rest of
>you at all.

Patronizing doesn't become you either.


>but i don't know why everyone is telling me to chill
>out when this guy continues to assault me. is he some
>sort of anarchy god on the list that has some divine
>right to walk all over any new person who makes a
>mistake? if so, i don't think the problem is with me
>and a dumb mistake.

No, dickhead.  I don't "continue to assault you."   I just absolutely 
refuse to let you get away with your lies of vicitimization.   I pointed 
out you were speaking in gibberish and you started name-calling.  And you 
continue.  I have a lifetime on my hands.  Keep at it.  At least this way I 
know I get mail.

And no one has indicated anything about holding forth as an 
"anarchy-god."  What you have held forth is that you are superior enough in 
your attitude that you don't feel it necessary to be correct.  Your 
assumption is that what you have to say is somehow so important that "90%" 
of the people who read it will just leap up and grok on your deep 
thoughts.  Really, though, the attitude that it's okay to be worng because 
people will put two-and-two together because it's you is quite egoistic.  I 
mean why make an effort to be coherent yourself if you can force Your Great 
Unwashed Minions to labor on your behalf, imposing your own hierarchy of 
intellectual dominance?

Really, Malodorous, such an attitude isn't anarchist in the slightest, and 
it borders on vanguardist.   Would not it be a better plan to actually say 
the truth instead of half-truths and instead of forcing people to think in 
order to be seen as coherent simply be coherent to begin with?   I mean at 
what point does your intellectual laziness become a burden on the rest of 
the community?

>i'll drop this when this guy does, but he seems to not
>be in the mood to stop anytime soon. until then
>list-members can blame him as he chose to bring it
>on-list as is evidenced by the email he posted of our
>dialogue.

If you don't want responses, don't send them.  You took a public posting 
and went private in order to insult.  You didn't ask me if I wanted to talk 
with you privately.  One of the basic tenets of this particular list is 
that one only goes private if invited.   I don't do private with newbies.




carp