On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 19:58 -0800, Frank Reichert wrote:
> Good evening again, Bill!
>
> Bill Anderson wrote to Frank Reichert...
>
> > Maybe because you are confusing dealing with "real people" with being
> > emotional? IMO emotion belongs where it belongs. Political decisions
> > based in emotion are often bad for liberty.
>
> "Often", or "always", or 'almost never often'? What's the
> point? Politics, including LP politics, is always filled with
> emotion. It seems to be a huge selling point that every political
> party tries to capitalize on whenever the opportunity arises. An
> 'emotionless' dead meat monologue of ideas never seems to find a
> way of reaching the average individual. When you deal with 'real
> people', whether in the supermarket or in most other
> circumstances, the lack of emotion often comes about as
> lackluster at best, and hardly ever finding a convincing subject.
Funny I recall you blasting me a couple years ago for advocating a
method of appealing to people's emotions during a campaign. Frank, you
are apparently very determined to put me into your preconceived mold,
and it will fail miserably every time.
You think to simply of other people and as a result often do this. For
you, apparently, you feel that emotion is always good. It is not. It is
not always bad either. A wise man knows when it is appropriate and when
it is not. Your emotional response to 9/11 calling for letting the
government read people's email and so on are a prime example of
emotional based political decisions that are bad for liberty.
Those you accused of being too unemotional have been shown to have been
correct in their opposition to those measures. You apply too much
meaning to "often" because it suits your personal mold of those you
disagree with.
Fact is, you've never seen any of my political speeched. You've never
witnessed me work a crowd, and show people that their emotions are best
served when they stop and think about it as well. Nor have I seen you do
anything other than write. The difference is, I don't pretend to know
what you are like in those scenarios and then lecture about whatever
image of it I've conjured up.
It's my understanding that this list isn't about reaching out to voters,
but rather to provide a place for discussion about liberty among people
who are already interested in it or convinced it is the correct path; or
are simply out for some spirited discussion. As such, I don't make
arguments aimed at the general public here. I reserve that for where I
believe it will be best used.
Besides, I get plenty of private off-list email from list members
thanking me for my rationality. Something you did when I was "defending"
your list against the Technocrat invasion.
> I previously wrote:
>
> > > Guess I have to ask. I have had three wifes. One who died in
> > > 1995. One other one who divorced me. And my present one. I also
> > > have five children in all of this. Don't know exactly how you
> > > wish to relate any of this to your reluctance at best, to dealing
> > > with all of the personalities, included Ed Fischag that still
> > > grace our presence today!
>
> To which, you replied:
> > I don't fit your square hole, so the question is void.
>
> Maybe not, really. You had a difficult time, as I recall, with
> the late Roger Erdman, and others simply because you failed to
> understand that at least some of their concerns might have
> possibly mirrored your own.
You recall incorrectly. I never had a problem with Erdman. We disagreed,
most often civilly, on matters of socialism vs. libertarianism. Your
desire to see me in your own way is biasing your memory. Indeed, Roger
and I agreed on many military oriented things in particular. Our primary
disagreement was that I was not a socialist. Something I believe you two
had disagreement on as well.
As I've said before, I don't operate under a misguided idea that I can
be positively viewed by all readers. If you don't like my style, so be
it. Others do.
I think the irony is that you, while lambasting me for being
unemotional, failed to recognize a joke -- something rooted in emotion.
I laughed harder at your failure to recognize a joke and use that
failure as an opportunity to attack me for laughing at it.
> > I don't understand why you think your three marriages have anything to
> > do with mine, or my preference for reason and login in a medium that
> > expresses emotion poorly on a subject matter that emotion serves poorly.
>
> Well, somehow that came up in this thread, and it seems to me at
> least, you might be making far too much of this than ought to be
> the case.
I simply stated I reserved my emotion for my family. You brought out all
the rest. You brought out your three marriages and attempted to make
some sort of point based off of it. You. I responded to it once saying
it had nothing to do with me and you accuse me of making too much of it.
Interesting. Are you actually forgetting your own posts that quickly, or
are you pretending to while thinking nobody will see it?
> To show you what was 'probably' said, I believe I wrote something
> earlier to the effect in answer to someone over marriage becoming
> a compromise, and asking me how that might work in my present
> marriage. That's how the context of this arose, and now you want
> to make that somehow into something it was never initially
> intended to be at all!
No, that was actually a separate thread, IIRC. No 'probably' needed,
simply look at the recent messages. I largely ignore you when you start
talking about marriage(s) after you started attacking outspoken LP women
as being mere mouthpieces for their husbands. Your personal life is
quite frankly, none of my business either.
> I guess the point in all of this is, we have personal enemies on
> all sides of each and every issue, and we have so many issues
> taking place in front of us each day, from ballot access, to
> court challenges on civil liberties -- and we often are
> confronted in such challenges by sudden allies who might not see
> everything exactly on other issues that we do! By "we", I mean
> the Libertarian Party, and that 'we' gets pretty meek results
> when you consider we fight light alley cats on a lot of these
> issues between ourselves, from abortion on demand, to open
> borders.
Actually, the LP (in Idaho) has continued to improve it's position
locally, and actually has a voice in a federal committee. We've elected
an LP-er (one of the leadership you attack whenever you can) to th
Caldwell City Council, we successfully altered the entire political
landscape of Nampa city politics as well -- even though we didn't elect
the person we had running. And the press gave us credit (and blame
depending on their personal desires) for doing it. Real, demonstrative
and verifiable results. We've never been more successful in real world
politics. We've grown the local party and increased our influence with
local state representatives. Yet you persist in trying to perpetuate the
idea that the LP in Idaho has gone to hell in a hand basket.
So I am sure others will forgive me if I perceive your above lamentation
of infighting as killing things with a skeptical eye.
--
Random Fortune of the moment:
It's recently come to Fortune's attention that scientists have stopped
using laboratory rats in favor of attorneys. Seems that there are not
only more of them, but you don't get so emotionally attached. The only
difficulty is that it's sometimes difficult to apply the experimental
results to humans.
[Also, there are some things even a rat won't do. Ed.]
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
