-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Tim wrote: On Monday, November 12, 2001, at 08:42 PM, Faustine wrote: > Why talk about it though? The sheer satisfaction of imagining feds and > sheeple crapping their pants in fearful anticipation? Even if nothing > happened at all, you have to realize unsympathetic people who aren't in on > your peculiar brand of humor are going to take things like this at face value > and hold it against you. You risk getting slapped around with the anti- > paramilitary training statutes whether you're kidding or not.
>I'm not kidding. I was there from Friday morning to last night. Fine. I dont know why you seem to be missing my point: being provoked into incriminating yourself by an anonymous troll is an entirely different issue from discussing the substance of whatever it is you happen to be doing. I just happen to have this gut-level common sense belief that if people might be able to use something against any given person, it's counterproductive and potentially dangerous to broadcast it the way you always do. Having moral courage is one thing, playing straight into the hands of people who wish you ill is quite another. It's none of my business what you do, but I'll be damned if I don't have the right to say I think you're making a mistake by talking about it. >As for "getting slapped around," I presume you plan to back this up with >something more than your "intuition"? It's not about intuition, just reading the news and putting two and two together. Everything I've seen about what's happening these days indicates that law enforcement will be looking for any excuse they can find to crack down on people they don't like. If they can keep people off planes for moronic reasons like reading Hayduke and Harry Potter, what else are they going to do with what's already on the books? It's probably just a bad case of pantscrapping paranoia, but I still think it's better to think a few steps ahead. > (gratuitous ad hominem snipped) > - From the "Allegiance to the US" section of the handbook on reasons > for denying > clearance: > Gee, I haven't sought "clearance." If you'll look at the archives, we had this conversation a few months ago. Nothing has changed. (snip) >Unconstitutional nonsense. It sure is. That's why I think (and have always openly said, here and everywhere) we need more pro-freedom policy analysts in Washington. I've never misrepresented myself or what I think here, even when it goes against what passes for the conventional wisdom around here. >So, Agent Faustine, report me. "Agent Faustine?" Are you totally out of your skull on crack? Use your reason: if I were with the FBI I never would have bothered. What a slap in the face. Do you always make false accusations to get out of an argument? >I wish I'd had your report to distribute to the group on Friday night. >Adding your name to the checklist of enemies would have been useful, Unreal. >but at the time I didn't think you were quite as much of an enemy as the >obvious names. Whatever warped interpretation you may have of me, I'm not your enemy. I'll bet whoever started this thread is laughing his head off about now. ~Faustine. *** The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedoms. - --William O. Douglas, Associate Justice, US Supreme Court -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 (C) 1997-1999 Network Associates, Inc. and its affiliated companies. (Diffie-Helman/DSS-only version) iQA/AwUBO/FyfPg5Tuca7bfvEQLcAACg4D20Vwa/yT/Lf0Ysv/U5RFCPSs8AoO7y Bj3tB4oekrjekb0ePLw0VGoX =Pkvp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
