From: "Dave Coull" <coull2-AT-btinternet.com> Subject: RE: test Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 01:20:16 -0000 Roger wrote > i suspect that most on the list are, like me, > a bit 'weary' of your snotty, smug, back-handed > insults. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. For 8 or 9 years I have accepted that I am in a minority on this list, and probably always will be, but that doesn't matter as long as I am succeeding in getting some things across to some people. And of course I am quite sure of that. Being in a minority, even a minority of one sometimes, has never bothered me in the slightest. > without any knowledge of what i've done or not done, > you come along again with one of your fucking drive-by > ad hominims Well of course I was _defending_ Kristopher's initiative from _your_ putdown. I didn't say the bit about a thousand weary cynics applied to you. It's a case of, if the cap fits... > and of course, you'll claim innocence when confronted Pure as the driven snow :-) > almost FORTY PERCENT of the posts on my drive > right now are from you. Gee, aren't you lucky! Save them up! They will be valuable some day! On the other hand, if you don't like them, use your "delete" key. > WHAT SHOULD WE DO NEXT? > did you hear me this time? No need to shout, I heard you the first time. And as a matter of fact I answered you the first time. Maybe _you_ are the one with a hearing problem, as you didn't hear my answer. But here it is again: I do not claim to have "The Answer". What I most defnitely _do_ claim is that it is _possible_ to stop Bush and Blair. Note that I said "possible" and not "inevitable". If enough people are prepared to take direct action to stop them, they can be stopped. If you come into that rather large group of people who think this war is going ahead no matter what they do, but despite that they will do what they can to try to stop it nevertheless, well then, I would disagree with your pessimism, and think it very damaging, while also thinking it perfectly _understandable_ that you should feel pessimistic. When I talked about "weary cynics who do sweet-fuck-all", obviously that did not apply to those who feel pessimistic but do what they can anyway; it applied to those who say "what's the use?" and whose ONLY contribution is to make cynical remarks about the efforts of those who _do_ try to do something. > what, specifically, will stop blair and bush? > and if you say you don't know, then you have > no room to preach to others. You underestimate my capacity to find room for preaching, Roger. My criticism is not aimed at those who are pessimistic but do what they can anyway. In talking about "weary cynics who do sweet-fuck-all" I was obviously criticising those whose _only_ contribution is to put down the efforts of those who do _not_ do "sweet fuck all". And yes, in relation to _that_ group, yes, I do think I can find room for preaching. > you seem to feel that if you, rather compusively > to my mind, respond to EVERY post that comes your > way, you have somehow 'won' the debate. sheesh. But it simply isn't true that I respond to every post that comes my way. If you look at the subject heading at the top of this post, "test", you will find that there were in fact several posts with that heading before yours. I felt no need to respond to them, but I decided to respond to your put-down of Kristopher's contribution. And _of course_ the debate can never be "won", by either side. But it will end sometime. Like when I am dead and buried under six feet of earth. Maybe. > if, on the other hand, you want to (for example) walk away > from your debt, then by all means lead the way. Kristopher's suggestion applied specifically to the USA. He quoted some federal law or other as applying. USA federal law does not apply here. The rules are different. Also, having already done it once, I am fairly certain that there is a legal bar under Scottish law on me doing so again. Anyway, I didn't say definitely that Kristopher's suggestion would work. What I said was that he was to be complimented on trying to come up with a positive suggestion. It is up to people in the USA to explore his suggestion and see how workable it would be. > if all you can do in your response is your usual blow-job, > then just fuck off. If by "fuck off" what you really mean is "I wish you would leave the anarchy-list", then please remember that wise saying, if wishes were horses then beggars would ride. > we're all doing what we can No, Roger, that is NOT true. YOU may be doing what you can, but it is not true that all are. To take just one obvious example, greg has stated on this list that he sees no point in doing anything, and that he is in fact doing nothing. > by the way, please refrain from sentences beginning with > "Roger, your problem is. . ." ; especially when it refers > to mass actions. No > i'm probably as old as you, Dave, and a lot more > travelled So what? > i was there with scarsdale in cardiff in 78 and 79 Do you mean Scargill? > fuck you Try saying "Om" . This may help to make you at peace with yourself and with nature and the universe, my brother. Dave Coull
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005