At 12:43 AM 2/17/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote:
While the LP or its majority may not call for the things I've critiqued, certainly libertarians have. Nor, as far as I can recall, have LPers repeatedly posted to the cypherpunk list material that is on-the-surface at least significantly off-topic; libertarians have. And I responded.
So you get the fun of attacking this straw man called "libertarians" without any responsibility to identify any actual people it might include other
On Feb 16, 1996 23:06:27, 'Bruce Baugh <bruce@aracnet.com>' wrote: than
a handful of folks that the vast majority of us think are kooks. And you've also acquired the remarkable mental power, apparently, to discern who is or is not an LP member based on their posts here.
Libertarians are not "straw men." They actually exist. I've seen them with my own eyes. If B. Baugh is upset that I have not mentioned any of the other libertarians (olf the cypherpunk list) that I have criticized, I would be happy to re-post to the list all of the related messages in other news groups on this topic listing their names. My "sent mail" archives contain a few thousand messages. (Aside to T.C. May: this is sarcasm and rhetorical hyperbole.) The vast majority of the libertarians on the cypherpunk list *might* think that the people I've criticized are "kooks" but I can find no evidence of this. I do note that some people who call themselves "libertarians" have so criticized the "kooks." The second point is, I think, either an error in logic. I have written nothing about my ability to tell what political party someone belongs or does not belong to. I infer that when someone tells me they are a member of the LP, CPUSA, SPUSA, etc. that they are, until evidence dictates another conclusion. If someone is a party member and decides not to make the material public, then they, not I, are responsible for any transient confusion that develops. But I do not demand or expect people to automatically list their party affiliation. I do note that the declared ability to "discern" unannounced party membership has historically been far more a rightwing then leftwing "ability" in the U.S.A.
Neat tricks.
But until they're joined with a willingness to look at a wider range of libertarian posts than the fragment that feeds your pet peeves, I reserve the right to be impressed.
Again, these seems to reflect your ability to reach conclusions about other people's behavior based on no evidence. I have read numerous posts by libertarians on the net; who has not! The issues I have responded to have usually centered on thigs like the mass killings of civilians, murder, and hatred of other people based on issues like race, ethnicity, nationality, and/or religion. You may consider these nothing more than my "pet peeves." This is your right. But in an era of increasing global hatred over such issues I do not think many would agree with your accessment of the relative weight of these issues. You need not be impressed; I was not posting to impress you.
And yes, this is off-topic. So this is all I have to say about it.
I think then that you posted one message too many. --tallpaul