From: bill@iglobal.net
Date: Mon Feb 24 1997 - 19:48:08 MST
> From: Lee Daniel Crocker <lcrocker@calweb.com>
> He claims precisely that; he just doesn't have the balls to say it
> in plain English, but leaves it as the implication of evasive
> rhetoric that would make a spin doctor proud. If he means something
> different, I can't fathom it. Perhaps I am seeing meanings that
> aren't there, or I am over-reaching because of the insidiously evil
> ideas he then spouts, but I think not. I think he really means to
> imply exactly what I think he implies, and his words are meant to
> attack that implication because he can't attack the facts.
Ok. I think I can understand that. I don't agree with your
argument but at least I can gather that your argument was not a
deliberate misrepresentation, but rather based on what you percieve
his intended meaning to be (as opposed to the literal words).
> Yes, I do get emotional about this particular subject, because this
> man, others like him, and his ideas are the most serious danger to
> my life and liberty imaginable. He is a liar, a coward, a rich
> hypocrite who wants to keep others from having the success he has
> achieved by manipulating the collectivist government to use its guns
> to keep them down now that he's got his. I would not allow this man
> into my house, or sit at a table with him. Reading his words fills
> me with moral revulsion. Is that emotional enough?
Plenty.
> I try to maintain some semblance of reason under these conditions,
> but I'm not perfect.
Define "semblance" and "perfect". (just kidding)
Peace,
William Kitchen
The future is ours to create.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:12 MST