From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Sun Aug 05 2001 - 11:37:45 MDT
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Olga wrote:
> > I personally am not interested in discussing this any more, with
> > people who claim to be reasonable - but drown out any kernel of
> > an idea with ridicule and hyperbole and helpful suggestions to
> > me about getting out and seeing the rest of the world (actually,
> > I've already had that privilege).
>
Lee wrote:
> Do you think that this is what I have done, and am doing?
I was writing about how the reparations issue was distorted (which you took
out of context, above), and I was not thinking about you when I wrote
"people" up there, even though you defended the screed-essay of Fred Reed on
the grounds of "... well, maybe there's something there..." (not an exact
quote of yours, but what I remember as its essence).
> > While I applaud that you have made journeys out of your comfort
> > zone, it is arrogant for you to suppose that "we" [commie pinko
> > socialist statist leftists that we are] have not examined issues
> > out of our "comfort zone."
>
> First, can you find where you were described as a commie or a
> pinko on our recent discussion? Have you made a straw man here?
I never said you or anyone described me as a ... but there was a post in
jest a while back about commie pinko something, and I was using this for
effect, in jest. No straw man, none needed.
> Second, I did not mean to imply that people from one side of
> the political spectrum behave any different, statistically, than
> those from any other part. I said as much on several occasions.
> I have simply noted that, far from only "examining" issues out
> of my comfort zone, I pulled the "other way" in the ideological
> tug-of-war that has been going on. No one else has. No one
> else probably will. J. R. has come very close in his long
> stream of consciousness post, and Joe may be headed in that
> direction. But that's it so far. So no one from the side
> opposite to mine has even tried, so far as I can tell.
Maybe you guys had a way to go. Maybe some of us didn't.
> > C'mon, libertarians don't have a monopoly on "sweet reason."
> Wow. You really read my appeal from a jaundiced viewpoint;
> but then, so did most people, I think. There was never even
> the *slightest* implication that there was a monopoly on
> letting reason into our lives: it was clearly a description
> of what may be possible for many people of every political
> and philosophical position. But I am not too hopeful that
> you are going to believe me, or go back and re-examine my post.
Okay, I believe you. I just wanted to make certain we understand each
other. Just let me have my own "sweet reason," and remember - I'm not a
post-modernist devotee, so I don't take "anything goes" as an acceptable
answer to every issue. (I'm not imputing the latter to you, don't get me
wrong, only pointing out I'm not of the woo woo variety of commie pinko
socialist statist leftists ... ha ha ha! It's a joke, son).
Cheers,
Olga
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:29 MST