Bob:
>We need not rely on reports of a couple locals, we've all had years of
>opportunity to hear BC for ourselves on TV & compare words with action &
>judge his words & action vs. fact.
Among patriots the "liberal media" is usually seen as being part of the
"big conspiracy", and I am surprised you are able to find it so useful. I
take that as good omen. :-)
>I'm sorry you don't share my low opinion of the Clintons. You've apparently
>got some company amongst the 23 or so % of the American people who voted them
>back in, even after knowing what sort of people they be (still baffles &
>disappoints me)
My opinion of Clinton is not much higher than yours. It is your style of
delivery and what I see as your double standards that I object to.
>"personal issues driving my political agenda that have nothing to do with the
>state of the world" -- Well, my political agenda is to preserve & expand our
>remaining freedoms & get our out-of-control government back into it's
>original Constitutional cage.
This is your political agenda.
>& what I believe is driving my agenda is 30+ years of politically-incorrect
>info gleaned from study of Rand, Branden, Von Mises, Rothbard, membership &
>"passive activity" in the Libertarian Party since '72 & fanatical devotion to
>the principles upon this country (perhaps the first in the universe to form a
>government based on recognition that men are free & have individual rights
>ABOVE government) was founded.
More of the same.
>Aw, Peter, even 'tho I'm older'n you, I'm still less than halfway thru my
>life & it keeps gettin' better; I've got a lot more experience & knowledge
>starting the 2nd half of life than I did starting the first half! :-)
Nice to see you expressing yourself in positive terms. :-)
>"Freedom", yes, a great value to me (not to you?). "Control", no --only
>control of self (do you believe YOU should be controlling you, or more
>capable people, like politicians, agencies, bureaucrats, etc.?).
What I believe is not the issue. The point I am trying to make is that if
you stepped down from your soap box a little more often and expressed a
little self-reflection, you would be more in harmony with the spirit of
this list which is about open dialogue and not the proselytization of
personal agendas.
>Not likely, my folks respected education & freedom to the max, waited a dozen
>years 'til they were prepared to provide for me before bringing me into this
>world & the nurtured, guided & encouraged me to develop physically & mentally
>as best they could. Perhaps my childhood environment was restricted to the
>extent that parental boundaries prevented me from being squashed by a truck
>as an infant & I'm grateful to my folks for all they did.
A little denial here maybe? ;-)
>Perhaps I'm resentful for the years of miseducation I received in
government schools &
>the need of un-learning lots of stuff I believed to be true. The effort has
>been worthwhile & I invite anyone who cares about their health & freedom to
>enjoy a similar journey.
And projection onto the outer environment instead? I am not trying to
analyze you especially not in a public forum like this but I have rarely
come across a more clear cut case than yours. :-/
Bob:
>I apologize to anyone offended by my less than ideal use of the language. I
>did not intend to offend. And I am a bit curious. How '
>bout an off-subject poll: How many were offended by me labeling these crummy
>terrocrats liars & murderers? How many agreed? How many couldn't care less?
> How many are showing the good sense to not even read this? :-)
I and several others who shall remain nameless feel offended and that is
enough. So please, if you want to assert your freedom to express yourself
freely on this list, use a little more judgment before posting sentiments
you feel strongly about. Ward Nicholson has written some excellent stuff
about the art of communicating in on-line forums like ours, and it is well
worth searching for in the archives. My experience is that if the general
level of dialogue is allowed to sink to the level of the lowest, common
denominator, a list will degenerate very fast.
>Well, I was not implying the Latin root of the word genius as "guardian
>deity", etc. but rather " a person having great mental capacity and inventive
>ability, great and original creative ability in some art, science, etc." --
>Webster's Does anyone who's read Burger's book, witnessed the changes he's
>facilitated in people's thinking on health, etc. argue that Burger's NOT a
>genius by that definition? If he's killed his mother & raped his father &
>burnt & pillaged Rome (even forgetting to pillage FIRST) make him a
>non-genius? Is mis-guided genius impossible (or even
I am trying to point out how terribly un-critical I think you are of people
you look up to and to express how frustrating it is to see you dividing
almost everything up into black and white - bad and good. Life is much more
complex than that and if I may say so and I do not mean to offend, I find
your mentor, Frederick Mann, who regretfully has left us - hopefully just
for his Summer vacation - to carry his radical opinions with a little more
grace than yourself.
>I think I can easily dismiss the evidence 'cause I haven't seen nor heard it.
> I don't consider interpretations of translations of writing in the French
>equivalent of Enquirer as "evidence".
L'Express & "Liberation" are about as far from the "Enquirer" as I am
likely to be joining the patriot movement any time soon. :-) - and a good
example of what I have been trying to point out: You make these
publications "bad" because they have taken on your "genius" G.C.Burger who
is "good."
>The significance of your urination example eludes me.
It was a joke about conspiracy buffs seeing only what they want to see and
seeing conspiracies even when they are completely out of the question.
Maybe the joke was a little too close to home. ;-) :-)
> yes all us humans have
>strengths & weaknesses. Clinton is perhaps the most talented politician in
>the history of the universe & probably fits the definition of "genius" on
>that account & should be acknowledged for that achievement. Nothing else
>could account for his seeming indestructibility.
On this we agree. He is an excellent politician.
> From my perspective you're doing with Burger what you're accusing me of
doing to a >bunch of rotten politicians (oops, did I slip again?), robbing
him of his genius in the
>health & nutrition research arena because of what you perceive as a grievous
>fault in the sexual arena.
God forbid that I should be Clinton's keeper. I just do not want on this
list the demonizing and the personal trashing that you seem to enjoy
partaking in.
As for G.C.Burger, I have always questioned the validity of many of his
theories. And now even more so. When somebody can be so off in one field, a
spill-over effect into others is very likely. Of course, no crime he has
committed can ever take away the many invaluable contributions he has made
to the fields of health and nutrition.
>You're right, I should be grateful to Clinton for providing me with my
>independence, my genetic material, my professional education, my wife, my
>home, my free time, my food, my freedom of speech & the beauty of Tahoe even
>'tho I didn't notice him around while my folks & my wife & I were working for
>those things & even 'tho I notice him doing everything possible to eliminate
>our remaining freedoms.
Why go to the other extreme? I have never asked you to be grateful to Clinton.
If you cannot see the irony in somebody so privileged as yourself grabbing
every opportunity to go on about how terrible and unfree the living
conditions are in this country as if you were living in some Russian Gulag,
I do not know what more to say. If you were a farmer whose farm had just
been repossessed by the credit company or an unskilled, unemployed laborer
living in a trailer park outside a little dirt town in Texas, I might be
able to relate to your on-going frustrations a little better. ;-)
>Peter, I acknowledge you for your keen mind & deeply appreciate the time
>you've taken responding to my off-subject political drivel. AND, those
>emoticons really help!! Some of that stuff was pretty heavy-duty * each
time one of >your ;-) 's showed up, my up-tight mind relaxed a bit & I
remembered,
>yeah, this is my friend, Peter, contributing to my life. I appreciate you a
>lot & I thank you again for your tireless work on this list. it's a
magnificent >contribution,
Thanks, for the kind words. :-) I admire your ability to step out of
character. Part of my frustration with you is that when you express
yourself on issues like politics, ethics and sometimes even nutrition, I
very easily loose touch with the person I am now connecting with (the
person behind the opinions). If you could merge these two personas a little
better, I think we would have a lot fewer disagreements.
>which reminds me, what becomes of the archives
>after we've all tired of this exercise? Will they be accessible for the
>education (mis-ed?) of future generations? are they your property? I'm
>still new here in cyberspace!
Hopefully, somebody else will take over. I announced my wish to retire from
my position as moderator a couple of months ago but there were no takers,
so I have decided to hang in a little longer, as has Dave. The archives we
want to remain public property indefinitely. As long as the list has some
activity - even very little will do it - and somebody to tend to it, the
archives will remain where they are now. Also, you or anybody else are free
to download all the archives like Stefan has been doing and keep copies of
the whole list stored for yourself.
> Exciting, wonderful times (the Net may be our
>best chance for regaining our freedom & speaking of overthrowing the gov't --
>not necessary, it will topple of its own weight as did the USSR & the Net
>will be the most powerful force in cutting off the funds to our enemy;
>encrypted paper-free transactions will disappear the IRS & with it, most of
>the unconstitutional activity of the oppressive state.)
On this I agree though not on what constitutes the "enemy". If you took
some prozac and I took some "speed", maybe we would see eye to eye on this
issue. ;-)
Best, Peter
[log in to unmask]
|
