Marc Montoni (aka Archimedes aka amcambassador) wrote: MM) Do me a favor, Brian. Mind your ISP's usage policies and cease sending me unsolicited email. (MM
I don't send email through my ISP. The mail-sending agent that I do use has no policy against sending email to public figures (e.g. the Secretary of the LPVA) who write about me on public forums. MM) I believe you're now up to about seven or eight messages to me for every one of mine to you. (MM Your beliefs are at variance with reality. My records show only four other emails that I've ever sent to you: * An Aug <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/1973> 10 response to an LPradicals posting in which you twice used the epithet "deformers" as you said "They've always been quick to malign the motives of anyone who takes the radical line; and many of them are extremely quick with personal insults" and ironically complained that a reformer "doesn't ever actually reply to any of the points I raise"; * A Sep 9 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2059> response to an LPradicals posting in which you called me "a brick"; * A Nov 2 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2364> response to an LPradicals posting in which you said that a document I wrote constituted "whining" and asked "I wonder if any of our reformer spies would like to comment on that particular brand of hypocrisy"; * A Nov <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2377> 7 response to a Bylaws blog posting in which you talked about LP "candidates who believe in gun control" in citing a survey in which I was the 2nd-lowest rated LP candidate. All but the first of the above emails were in response to your public criticisms aimed specifically at me. All of them were courtesy cc's of replies mentioning you that would be publicly copied to my own forum and that you were unlikely to notice (due to censorship on LPradicals and obscurity in the Bylaws blog comments). My email to you yesterday was merely me using reply-to-all to correct a reformer's criticism of the radicals -- a correction you welcomed by describing it as "wisdom". Thus it's silly for you to pretend I'm somehow stalking you. I'm simply correcting the public allegations you make against me, and making sure that you see the corrections. If you want to stop getting corrected in this way, it's obvious what you should do. (Hint: whining about "unsolicited email" is the wrong answer.) MM) If the fact that I have nothing to say to you (at least about the radical vs reform debate) bothers you, well, just let it go. (MM That you have nothing to say TO me doesn't bother me, but instead delights me as it ensures that my corrections of your statements become the last word. No, it's what you say ABOUT me, and not what you don't say TO me, that motivates my corrections of you. I don't know how that could be any more obvious. MM) Just in case you feel like sending mail to me again, I won't get it, as I've just added your address to the spam filter at my ISP. (MM Delightful. MM) Thank you all for doing something *productive* for liberty today**. Note: That doesn't mean writing voluminous email screeds to other libertarians who don't shut up and toe your line of perfection. (MM This ludicrous "perfection" strawman is a handy gauge of your cognitive dissonance. I'm working to make the Party's fundamental documents more officially tolerant of the various principled schools of libertarianism, while you're trying to make them intolerant of anything but Rothbard's absolutist and idiosyncratic answers to the myriad free variables in libertarian theory: http://knowinghumans.net/2007/12/varieties-of-principled-libertarianism.html . You radicals are the ones insisting that the Platform reflect a standard of "perfection", not me. And I have NEVER told anybody to "shut up", but you and Susan have censored me from replying on LPradicals when you criticize me there by name. Hypocrisy, indeed.
