----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:40 AM Subject: Stranger in a Strange Land :-) Re: Tyranny
> At 12:38 AM 2/29/2004 -0600 Robert Seeberger wrote: > >> My preference is that people recognize the irony of my predicament > >when I > >> am being criticized on Brin-L *simultaneously* for being > >insufficiently > >> original in thought and also for being too original in thought. > > > >This paragraph is the key to a misunderstanding. > > > >None of my comments (re: running with the pack, dittophasia) were > >directed towards your arguments, the arguments you were making or any > >originality or lack thereof. > > So, if your remarks were not directed towards my arguments, should I > presume then that they were directed towards me personally? ;-) Not in the way I think you mean here.<G> I think there are three areas towards which a criticism might be directed in a forum such as this. What one says. What one does. What one is. I'm certainly not critisizing what you are or who you are. > > >It was the fact that you came out against Gay Marriage (at all) that > >my comments were directed towards. (re: gay best friend) > > > >What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is that whatever side of an issue > >the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah Rah. > > See, and this is the kind of dishonesty I have to put up with around here > that positively infuriates me. What you are basically saying is that "I > am a hack." No, and to be honest I resent the idea that you think my opinion of you is so low. > I was on this List for at least four years of the Clinton > Administration. I don't recall many people being accused of: "whatever > side of an issue the Whitehouse falls on, you are right in there Rah Rah > Rah." I certainly don't recall any of the liberals on Brin-L *ever* being > challenged to make a 15-point List of disagreements that they have with > their Party, It's Leaders, and others generally associated with their > opinions. No, but on the other hand you also saw voluntary criticism of that administration. > > Nevertheless, I understand that Brin-L is substantially biased to the > Left-Wing, so I decided to play-along and I *made* such a List. I forget > everything exactly that I said about it, but I think that I said something > to the effect that President Bush sold-out on carbon emissions trading. > But at any rate, I listed plenty of disagreements. Thats fair, and I *do* remember that. I prefaced my latest statement thusly for a reason: "What I am seeing or think I'm seeing is" I'm not always sure where you are coming from with certainty. The only way to find out is to go to the source. > > And yet, even after going through all of that, which was just a little > humiliating and degrading to me, I think you deserve some validation on that account. That doesn't make you right or wrong in any particular circumstance, but I can and do sympathise with how it effects you. >I *still* get pure bulls*** like this from > you about how I am a "hack" and how I am just "running with the pack," like > I am a mindless sheep or something. There are times when I think you are wrong, but I never think you are mindless. > And to think that you claim to be one > of the more "reasonable" left-wingers on this List. I said that? > > Fine then. Like Tom said, I am just going to have to accept that Brin-L > is what it is. I will accept the fact that in the minds of plenty of the > Left-Wingers around here it is impossible to be right-wing and have > respectability and credibility. That's just how it is then, and I am just > going to deal with it. Well.....Brin-L *is* what it is, but that doesn't mean you have to take any crap off anyone. Pretty much like right now, you seem to be thinking you are not taking any crap off of me. <G> > > >I suspect that the *real* reasons lie with your religious beliefs > >which like mine, are Catholic, yet unlike mine are very conservative. > >I don't begrudge you that, in fact I respect it, but we are somewhat > >protected from each others beliefs as a secondary effect of the > >Constitution. Are we not? > > And if the root of my beliefs was in conservative Catholicism, shouldn't I > have been opposed to the US Supreme Court's decision rendering Texas' > anti-sodomy laws Unconstitutional? Shouldn't I also oppose civil unions? > > And yet, I do not. Despite the fact that Scalia wrote a blistering > dissent of th Texas decision, and that there are plenty of conservatives > who are opposing the Musgrave Amendment on the grounds that it permits > civil unios. Actually its not Scalia that I think you admire. And I don't expect that you follow any old horse just because it has "conservative" branded on it. > > But I forgot, I am just "running with the pack" on this one. Rah Rah > Scalia, right? > > >Just continue my friend. And if we don't agree, we will at least > >understand better. > > I wish that I could beleive you on that. Yet, from my very days on this > List, I have been talking abortion, and I have always said that my goal is > not necessarily to convince everyone here of the pro-life position, but to > at least have most of the people here better *understand* pro-lifers, and > why we take the positions we do. To be honest, what I recall best is you claiming that you could change peoples minds. But that was four years or so ago. Do you still feel the same or is the above statement indicative of your current feelings? > > And yet, after all of these years, you still dragged out that hideous > ridiculous nonsense about "e-e-e-e-very sperm is sacred" Not the first time I've done that here and i've done it plenty of other places too. The nuns at the hospital I work at have given me some pretty funny looks when they hear me sing it, but they love me anyway.<G> >(which was written > by Monty Python as a direct mockery of pro-lifers BTW) and acted as if it > somehow had an iota of intellectual relevance in it. I can't tell you > absolutely incredibly disappointing it was for me to see that you hadn't > really begun to understand anything at all. > Here you are absolutely positively dead ass wrong!!!!<G> Go watch that segment of the movie again John. It is a very direct criticism and parody of the Churches policies against birth control, specifically condoms and such, and the Churches stance on sex in general. It has nothing.....absolutely nada to do with abortion. xponent Life Is Like This Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
