How's that again?

Wed Mar 13 02:52:53 PST 1996

At 10:52 PM 3/12/96 -0800, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>Jim and interested C'punks,
>
>In response to a Jim Bell post I wrote:
>
>> >Hey, Jim, don't forget me.  You are the only person I have ever
>> >specifically UNinvited to one of my parties in over a decade of
>> >hosting same.  I guess that makes you special.
>
>To which Jim replied:
> 
>> You're confused.  You're describe YOUR reaction to ME, not MY reaction to 
>> YOU.  And I am unaware of being invited to a "party," and now that I've 
>> discovered what a sleazy person Alan Olsen and his merry band are, it is 
>> really doubtful that I would have enjoyed what was advertised as a 
>> cypherpunks meeting, but which you now claim was a "party."  Your level of 
>> "honesty" is showing.
>
>A)  It is you who is confused (see below)
>
>B)  I'm not Alan Olsen (nor a member of his merry band, so I have
>    no idea what you are talking about.

Wrong area of the country.  My branch of the Illuminati only controls the
area around portland.

>C)  There was a Cypherpunk meeting followed by a party.  The
>    pictures are on the Web.

A party which I missed.  (It looked like ALOT of fun!)

>D)  It is your level of honesty that is showing.  As can be seen
>    from the two messages (below) I sent you at the time.  They
>    quote you in pertinent part.

[quoted text removed for space]

I found out along time ago that Jim only sees what Jim *WANTS* to see. 

This whole tantrum of his is because I challenged his views on the list and
happened to mention a "cunning plan" on his.  Jim demanded an apology for
treating him differently than what he wanted to be treated.  (He felt that I
owed him some sort of "respect", something I lost for him when I met him in
person.)  He never once wanted to deal with it in a civil manner.  Instead
he wanted to vent in public and get some sort of emotional satisfaction.
(Something I would guess he does not recieve in real life.)  Since that
time, he has taken every opertunity to slander me on this list.  (And, for
the most part, I ignore him.)  

I have found that the best way to counter any idea that Jim has is to just
let him go on about it.  His lack of tact, his refusal to deal with any
argument against his closely held convictions, his habit of ad hominem
attacks with little or no information, and his general loonieness make any
ideas he may have easlly discardable as being from a certified crank.  (And
he does an even better job at it in person!)

I do find it quite humerous that he feels that I somehow have control over
those who think he is a twit.  It shows just how disconnected he is from
anything resembling reality.  (Maybe he should spend more time on
alt.conspiracy.  He might find a few people who will humor him.)  If I had
such unwavering control over then, more of them would post on the national list!

Well, I have better things to do than rant about Mr. Bell's more pavlovian
responses and you have better things to do than reading them...