Re: in defense of Lon Horiuchi
When I posted "in defense of Lon Horiuchi" I had intended not to follow up on the thread, but the several responses I've read (which were more reasoned and polite than I had expected-- thanks guys) indicate that I didn't explain myself clearly. It was not my intention to argue that Lon Horiuchi is a good guy, that he fulfilled his responsibilities with appropriate care, that he's a good shot, that he worked in an honorable profession, that he is blameless in the death of the child, or such. (I may or may not _believe_ some of these propositions, but I'll spare you for you the full littany of my opinions.) All I intended to assert was that Lon Horiuchi is almost certainly not the malicious baby-killing murderer that Anonymous portrayed. There are many issues one could legitimately argue regarding a policeman who accidentally kills a non-combatant bystander during a fight. But comparing such a policemen to a terrorist who deliberately targets non-combatants with a bomb is beyond the pale. That, but for my interruption, this comparison would have passed unremarked among the cypherpunks crowd is damning. Why I'm posting: I don't expect that merely because of my contradiction the more rabid cypherpunks will suddenly throw off their twin blinders of ideology and hatred. Neither do I desire that they retreat into closed conversation where they can continue their self-inflaming rants without fear of interruption. My motivation in posting critical articles like these is primarily because there are a great number of silent readers of the cpunks list, and some of these people, perhaps being young or inexperienced, may consider such vile slanders to be self-evident truths if they continually see them pass unchallenged. Regards, Zooko
Zooko Journeyman wrote:
All I intended to assert was that Lon Horiuchi is almost certainly not the malicious baby-killing murderer that Anonymous portrayed.
The Netly News Network (http://netlynews.com/) September 10, 1997 Building in Big Brother By Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) Hoover despised Martin Luther King, Jr. -- branding him an "obsessive degenerate" -- and once sent him an anonymous letter, using information gathered through illegal surveillance, to encourage the depressed civil rights leader to commit suicide. Hoover's legacy? Having the FBI headquarters bear his name today. Zooko. Maybe the agent just asks them to commit suicide. Alec "How many of them FBI agents did you say you wanted us to send you?"
On Fri, 12 Sep 1997 03:19:30 -0600, you wrote: [snip]
How about we divvy up the duties of teaching these young, inexperienced readers the truths of life. You teach them how to say "Heil Hitler!" and we'll teach them how to say "Lock and Load!" Their future is going to be mighty dim if they don't know how to say one or the other.
TruthMonger
I fear it will be a dim future if they must learn those phrases as well. -Doug ------------------- Douglas L. Peterson mailto:fnorky@geocities.com http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/1271/
Zooko Journeyman wrote:
All I intended to assert was that Lon Horiuchi is almost certainly not the malicious baby-killing murderer that Anonymous portrayed.
That is *not*at*all* certain. Others turned down the job because they didn't want to risk becoming baby-killing murderers.
But comparing such a policemen to a terrorist who deliberately targets non-combatants with a bomb is beyond the pale.
How about comparing him to a handful of BATF agents who scoot out of the building to be bombed, leaving the non-combatants behind without warning them of the danger? Is that a good comparison?
That, but for my interruption, this comparison would have passed unremarked among the cypherpunks crowd is damning.
You are certainly assuming an awful lot, here. If you hadn't butted in, some of us who agree with him would have taken the opposite position just to be contrary sons of bitches.
I don't expect that merely because of my contradiction the more rabid cypherpunks will suddenly throw off their twin blinders of ideology and hatred. Neither do I desire that they retreat into closed conversation where they can continue their self-inflaming rants without fear of interruption.
Had a toilet plunger stuck up your ass, lately, Zooko? Is that why you didn't waddle on over to Waco and watch those nice LEA's help those Bible-thumpers out of the compound? What's the matter? You miss the Nazis? Sorry we butted into your politics over there. We could send you some FBI guys as replacements.
My motivation in posting critical articles like these is primarily because there are a great number of silent readers of the cpunks list, and some of these people, perhaps being young or inexperienced, may consider such vile slanders to be self-evident truths if they continually see them pass unchallenged.
Zooko, I'm very happy for you, living in a country where the LEA's apparently kiss the citizens on the lips when they meet. Go suck on a toilet plunger while burning some babies and give some thought to moving to the New Amerika. We'll have Rodney King meet you at the airport. Ask him to show you how fast his car can go. How about we divvy up the duties of teaching these young, inexperienced readers the truths of life. You teach them how to say "Heil Hitler!" and we'll teach them how to say "Lock and Load!" Their future is going to be mighty dim if they don't know how to say one or the other. TruthMonger
There are many issues one could legitimately argue regarding a policeman who accidentally kills a non-combatant bystander during a fight. But comparing such a policemen to a terrorist who deliberately targets non-combatants with a bomb is beyond the pale. That, but for my interruption, this comparison would have passed unremarked among the cypherpunks crowd is damning.
I think the point, Zooko, is that the sniper didn't "accidentally" kill the woman and her baby. It was a deliberate shot. If it wasn't a deliberate shot, then not only is the shooter criminally negligent, but so is the person who handed him the rifle.
Why I'm posting: I don't expect that merely because of my contradiction the more rabid cypherpunks will suddenly throw off their twin blinders of ideology and hatred. Neither do I desire that
There is no (or little) hatred of individuals here. There is hatred for ideologies, beliefs, and points of view. I don't hate you. I don't know you. I might hate you if I knew you, it is a stastically probability, but until we meet, who knows. I DO hate big intrusive governments. I don't see the problem there. I do hate the politics of the Big Lie, and the politics of mob rule. I don't see the problem there. I do hate spending 1/3 to 1/2 of my working hours supporting lazy good for nothing bums. No, I am not talking about welfare reciepents, I am talking about Government workers. I don't see a problem with this.
because there are a great number of silent readers of the cpunks list, and some of these people, perhaps being young or inexperienced, may consider such vile slanders to be self-evident truths if they continually see them pass unchallenged.
Post a challenge, not erroneous "facts".
participants (5)
-
Alec McCrackin -
fnorky＠geocities.com -
snow -
TruthMonger -
Zooko Journeyman