File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0302, message 87


From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com>
Subject: Vladimir
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 16:13:20 -0000



Vladimir writes


> you are probably refering to the word "Volya" which
> does indead mean "freedom" 


Yes, you're right about that. Many, many years ago,
I was involved in a London-based anarchist/libertarian
magazine called "Volya". We published stories received
through contacts in eastern Europe exposing the crimes 
being carried out by the Soviet Union, and tried 
to get it distributed in Russia etc. One of our editors
was arrested at Moscow airport carrying a big load
of "subversive" material. At the time the Soviet
government didn't want a scandal so they just put
him on the next flight back to London. In 1978 we 
started the "Boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics" campaign.
Much later, Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan jumped
on the bandwagon we had started, although, in their
case, for completely hypocritical and unprincipled
reasons.  
 

> as for "VolodyA!" that is my name (Volodya
> is a derivative for Vladimir just as Dave 
> is one for David... right)


Wrong. 

Dave  is  SHORT  for David. 
Just one sylable instead of two.
But "Volodya" isn't  _short_  for
Vladimir. They both have three sylables.


> "This list" doesn't really "include" anybody


Let me take this slowly, since you have so much 
difficulty with the English language. Either
that, or you are as thick as two short planks, 
as they say in Ireland. 

A "list" is "a number of connected items or names".
When I go shopping, I might write out a "shopping
list". That means a list of items which I want
to buy   -   bread, cereal, milk, and so on.
Each of the items on my shopping list is "included"
in that list. Exactly the same thing is true
of the anarchy-list. It is a list of people
who have come together on the internet to talk
about things which, in general, have some kind
of connection to anarchy. All of the people
who are on this list are "included" in it.
INCLUDING  YOU . 


> i don't consider myself to be a part of this list


Regardles of whether you consider yourself
as part of it or not, it is a statement
of fact that you are included in the anarchy
list. The only way you could  NOT  be included
would be if you were to un-sub. So long
as you continue arguing with me on this
list, you continue to prove that I am
right in saying that this list "includes"
you.

Vladimir writes


> i do respect you oppinion...that is so abviously wrong.


But then in his next message Vladimir writes


> you do have a brain cell... However, 
> that one cell is all you have....


so, since the "respect" didn't last very long, 
I am under no obligation to be polite to Vlad.


> Vladimir. I hate that name


But it is the name that your mommy and daddy
gave to you! Anyway, since you  _are_  Vladimir,
despite hating the name, and since you have
been rude to me yet again, I will call you
by your proper name. You can call me "David"
if you like. I don't mind. I am quite proud
of my given name.


> I'm sorry that i have busted your bubble, but 
> you are wrong, the great land of the free, 
> god blessed, prosperous, and good-wishing 
> the United States of America, the one and 
> the only country claiming to represent 2 continents 
> (NA and SA) and even sometimes one of the four 
> major directions (West) does indead have a bad 
> point to it... 


No, Vlad, you haven't burst my bubble.
Despite loving some of its citizens, 
I have no illusions about the USA being 
"the land of the free". 


>>> Read the constitution 
>> 
>> 
>> No thanks.
>> 
>> Life is too short.
>
> But yet soon you will use the laws in your argument....


No I won't


>> It is at least questionable whether in the early 
>> days slaves had any "rights"  _in law_   -  that
>> is, according to the state. 
>
> here you are using that law that you promissed not to read


No, I'm not. I am not "using" the law. It was  YOU
who chose to define "rights" as being some concession 
granted by the state. Using  YOUR  definition, it 
is questionable whether slaves in the early days 
of the USA had any rights.


> because your life is too short


Who said anything about "my" life?
I was making a general statement.
YOUR  life is  _also_  short.


> that would mean that USA is not great, 
> and we have already agreed that it is


Who is this "we" ?

YOU  may have already agreed that the USA is great.

I didn't.


> What is a limited freedom? 


Look, YOU  were the one who said


>> free persons on the other hand have freedom (undevisible)


And I was the one pointing out the flaw in  YOUR
logic   -   YOU  may consider yourself "free" 
in your own mind, but if your circumstances are 
un-free, then their are limits on the "freedom"
which you imagine you have.


> not that of any american, since all the persons 
> who live in a great country that is freedom 
> sharing have to be (by birth) smart and educated)?


Why do you keep having a "go" at Americans?

Is it because, amongst your many other mistaken
beliefs, you believe me to be one?


>>> there are many Homo Sapiens who don't join together 
>>> with other species to fight for their freedom. 
>> 
>> 
>> Since human beings are the only species capable
>> of joining together with significant numbers
>> of other individuals, it would be quite pointless
>> to attempt to do this. 
>
> Hold on, isn't that what you were trying to prove... 
> and now you are using your thesis as an argument


No I'm not. It is a simple statement of fact that
human beings are the only species of animal capable
of joining together with significant numbers of
other individuals. Not counting desert regions,
in every square metre of earth there are thousands 
of earthworms. Earthworms are animals, and, despite 
being small, there are so many of them they  _far_ 
outweigh us humans. But just try telling them
"Worms of the World Unite!" and see how far
you get.


> slaves only came to existence when after wars those
> captured were not killed. So they only were alive 
> because they were allowed to. But what is the point... 
> they still should have been free.


SHOULD  have been free, Vlad ?

It is quite clear from this statement that
you are talking about a  RIGHT  to freedom!
So it turns out that you  DO  believe in rights!


Dave Coull


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005