I've *finally* had a chance to try and catch up on my CyP (vice CoP) reading, including the running tit-for-tat between Jim Bell and (most of) the rest of

While Mr. Bell's Assassination Politics idea has a lot of interesting ramifications, I've found that his >apparent in-your-face-and-wha'cha-gonna-do-about-it-PUNK attitude makes reading his

Perhaps if 'we' were to simply read his postings, and respond *only* to

I've *finally* had a chance to try and catch up on my CyP (vice CoP) reading, including the running tit-for-tat between Jim Bell and (most of) the rest of

At 12:55 AM 3/12/96 +0600, David K. Merriman wrote: the list. I think this is an exaggeration... I"ve been told that this list goes to over a thousand addresses. Weighted only among those who choose to post (a self-selected group, obviously), I do raise some heat, but it isn't clear that "most" or even a large minority of the list disagree with my conclusions. I'm not assuming they agree, but you seem to be assuming they disagree. postings very tedious. In the last few days, I'm basically ignoring AP, and am fighting a fire that some people around here think is just fine. You might note that the same people who have been most critical of my stance on the Leahy bill are the same ones who vigorously opposed AP, suggesting that their motives are questionable and certainly a bit "predictable." As I've mentioned before, and as a contrary example, I've seen (on other lists/echoes) at least two separate instances where people who (proudly?) claim they "always" oppose everything I say, say that my stance on the Leahy bill is quite accurate. _THOSE_ people are at least honest enough to not (always) oppose a position simply because "Jim Bell" supports it, or vice versa. those that maintain a civil tone, it would finally sink in with him that his Terrible Two's antics aren't appreciated. There's is a better tactic you could take. If somebody says something to me, or for that matter to the entire list, that you consider foolish and unsupported or elitist or just plain wrong, rather than expect _me_ to wipe the floor with him, _you_ criticize in a far more tactful manner. Frankly, I get tired of doing the heavy lifting for all the slackers out there who are seemingly content to just sit back and watch the fray. Normally, there's nothing wrong with just READING, per se, but when people like you make statements like: the list. ...there is at least the (false) implication that the dispute is between me and "the silent majority", a term pioneered by Richard Nixon, in case you either don't recall or weren't around when it happened. You (and he) were falsely suggesting that anybody out there who doesn't say a thing MUST be on your side.

The only other options I see are: Someone gets his snailmail address and sends him a Dale Carnegie book, or there's a mass kill-filing, with him as the guest of (dis)honor.

As noted, his AP idea seems worth discussing, I'd be reluctant to lose it. I'd hate to see him turned into LD-2 (Son of LD? :-) because he doesn't seem to have learned Tact and Manners yet.

You will notice, I assume, that I have been and can be tactful to most people; where exceptions exist, they are typically among anonymous posters (such as this "Black Unicorn") who has now admitted he's an elitist legal snob and doesn't want anybody who hasn't spent a few years in law ("mental reform") school to pass judgment on the judges, no matter how outrageous their actions become. Oh, yes, and I can't forget Padgett Peterson, who has raised spinelessness to a new art form. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com