On Thursday, January 17, 2002, at 08:45 AM, Aimee Farr wrote: > When you paint targets on people, other individuals may cause them harm, > seeking some measure of your acceptance. Some here might have actual > "followers," not fans or confederates-in-cause. Some individuals here, > and > you even as a group don't have to "ask" for somebody to be hurt, just > imply > that it is consistent with your wishes. When somebody expresses targeted > violent sentiments, and you don't correct them, they perceive that as a > ratification. (While "mattd" is a self-identifier, others might not be. > You > might not even know about them.) Such "suggestions" are a time-tested > method > of obtaining plausible deniability for violent political action. >
Back on the list for a day or two and already you are back in your tired old pattern of claiming that there is some collective guilt for the actions of individuals. What "mattd" writes about is of little concern to me--I filter his garbage into the right spot for it. The notion that others have to "denounce" his views, or my views, or your views is wrong-headed. People say a lot of things, and others are free to believe or not believe what they say. It is not our collective responsibility, nor any of our individual responsibilities, to denounce or repudiate them. And your insinuation that we are using mattd, for example, as a cat's paw for "violent political action" (?) while "obtaining plausible deniabilty" is pernicious. Things must be quiet in Crawford with the Prez gone, but this is no excuse for you to return to this list and resume your trolling. --Tim May "The great object is that every man be armed and everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." --Alexander Hamilton
