-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 02:51 PM 2/14/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote:

On Feb 11, 1996 23:48:29, 'jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>' wrote:

...

At 11:59 PM 2/11/96 -0500, tallpaul wrote:

...

I want to write on the theme posted to the list in the message below where J. Bell wrote "It is their ACTIONS that I feel violate my rights; that is

...

...

what justifies my seeking their deaths, should I choose to do so."

First, one thing that marks the sane adult from the child and the floridly psychotic adult is the sane adult's knowledge that "feelings" and "facts"

...

...

are two different things.

It is one thing to "feel," as J. Bell or all of us might, that our rights

...

...

have been violated.

It is another thing to maintain, as J. Bell uniquely appears to do, that the "feeling" gives him the right to seek another person's death.

You're clearly confused. I was responding to an accusation that I was defending seeking somebody's death simply because of a disagreement of OPINION. My comment was intended to remind the reader that it is the ACTIONS of a person which justify the self-defense; not simply the disagreement.

I disagree and I believe that my quote (reposted by J. Bell) of his original statement supports me. He mentioned "ACTIONS" and he mentioned "OPINIONS" but he relied on his "feelings" as the touchstone of reality. More than ever I believe that he genuinely cannot understand the difference. He still confuses his "feelings" which exist nowhere but inside his head with "ACTIONS" which exist outside his head in the real world.

Frankly, I think you are deliberately engaging in nit-picky semantical arguments when your fundamental position is bankrupt. I've always made it clear that I don't "assume" that every person is right in his belief that his rights have been violated; rather, I point out that whether they are right or wrong, ultimately you (and me, and society) must deal with the FACT of that belief. If the person (people?) in question is actually wrong, then consider it a useful task to explain to that person WHY his beliefs are wrong. If he's RIGHT, he has the right to act to defend his rights. The question of whether any given person is right, in any given belief, is an interesting matter, but it is only marginally relevant to the subject of "Assassination Politics." Ultimately, people WILL act on what they believe to be true; you can't just stick your head in the sand and make them go away. You can try to convince them they're wrong, or you can try to defend yourself against their (allegedly misguided) actions: That is your choice. Get back to the subject at hand and I'll be happy to continue to debate. Engage in silly semantics and I'll be pleased to ignore you. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSN1V/qHVDBboB2dAQFObAQAnYKsS2YqWwWVatdTCYBvcq2eGdXD4UNf 0hLC15BHPcK7PPNx2RbgevjatE8+NFCDXsgOYdANDDcCLo9KiXGtHjOg9790msuX sCLGKkZkijXNe64Bu2tpvcYT1Aqs+PVrYiAad/itieIvCQ3v1GdWSAvuULuNVqP0 TZptrXTDYtE= =SJtm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----