OT: I have TOSed Coyu on his post regarding his advocation of "ethnic clensing"

[alfred montestruc]

Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.

I have TOSed ***@aol.com regarding the following post

http://tinyurl.com/5fcza

in which he advocates mass murder and/or asserts it better to have been done
than not, which is no different in my opinion.

I request that others also TOS him, not because it is offensive, which it
is, but because it advocated violence against a class of people with the
object of genocide. The address to do this at his ISP is:

***@aol.com

you may need the following header:

Lines: 36X-Admin: ***@aol.comFrom: ***@aol.com (Coyu)Newsgroups:
alt.history.futureDate: 26 Sep 2004 16:38:03 GMTReferences:
<cj6m3c$ndm$***@panix2.panix.com>Organization: AOL http://www.aol.comSubject:
Re: 2050: Thomas Paine v John Stuart Mill: WHO! WILL! WIN!Message-ID:
<***@mb-m01.aol.com>

[robert j. kolker]

Post by alfred montestruc
Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.
http://tinyurl.com/5fcza
in which he advocates mass murder and/or asserts it better to have been done
than not, which is no different in my opinion.
I request that others also TOS him, not because it is offensive, which it
is, but because it advocated violence against a class of people with the

If someday it should happen that a victim must be found
I have a little list, I have a little list
Of society offenders who are best off underground
And never will be missed, no never will be missed

--- The Lord High Executioner's Song--- from -The Mikado-.

Alfred, you are overwrought. Take a few deep breaths and calm down.

The is nothing wrong with advocating genocide. Doing it are attempting
is or making concrete plans to do the deed is another thing.

If you had lived during the period between the Civil War and the turn of
the century would have have net-copped Phillip Sheridan for saying the
only good Indian is a dead Indian? Wishing our enemies dead or gone is
as natural as breathing.

If you don't like what Coyu is writing, pay no attention to it.

Bob Kolker

[alfred montestruc]

Post by robert j. kolker

Post by alfred montestruc
Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.
http://tinyurl.com/5fcza
in which he advocates mass murder and/or asserts it better to have been done
than not, which is no different in my opinion.
I request that others also TOS him, not because it is offensive, which it
is, but because it advocated violence against a class of people with the

If someday it should happen that a victim must be found
I have a little list, I have a little list
Of society offenders who are best off underground
And never will be missed, no never will be missed
--- The Lord High Executioner's Song--- from -The Mikado-.
Alfred, you are overwrought. Take a few deep breaths and calm down.
The is nothing wrong with advocating genocide.

In apperent seriousness? I disagree

Post by robert j. kolker
Doing it are attempting
is or making concrete plans to do the deed is another thing.

Duh! He was suggesting modern-day forcible deportation of southerners from
the US as far as I can tell as a serious plan.

Post by robert j. kolker
If you had lived during the period between the Civil War and the turn of
the century would have have net-copped Phillip Sheridan for saying the
only good Indian is a dead Indian?

That is an expression of anger, not an advocation of murder.

The below is an advocation of a political plan to force people off their
native land to another place against their will. Alos in the process
disenfranchize them.

http://tinyurl.com/5fcza

--------------------quote coyu----------------
I propose the should-have-been-cleansed be resettled in mainland
China, where they won't demographically swamp the pre-existing
population -- rather the reverse -- and where the blonde ones
should be especially popular. Also, the mainland's government has
harsh but fair policies regarding secession.
----------end quote---------------

Post by robert j. kolker
Wishing our enemies dead or gone is
as natural as breathing.

Wishing someone, or some set of people dead, and politicing for their
judicial murder or deportation and violation of their rights as citizens are
two very different things.

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by alfred montestruc
The below is an advocation of a political plan to force people off their
native land to another place against their will. Alos in the process
disenfranchize them.
--------------------quote coyu----------------
I propose the should-have-been-cleansed be resettled in mainland
China, where they won't demographically swamp the pre-existing
population -- rather the reverse -- and where the blonde ones
should be especially popular. Also, the mainland's government has
harsh but fair policies regarding secession.
----------end quote---------------

It seems to me that Coyu was just doing a bit of sport fishing
(take that hook out of your mouth, Al) and wasn't actually
calling for genocide, so I don't see any reason to get worked
up about it.

But I'm not so sure that population transfer _isn't_ a good idea
in some cases, if it could be done without bloodshed (thou that's
probably impossible).

I think it would have been easier and more effective in the long run
to transfer African Americas somewhere else then white Southern
Americans, since the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S. will
likely always be a problem between blacks and whites.

Take the case of the Polish/German population transfer after WWII,
sure it was bloody but it did prevent the problems that would have
no doubt happened had the Germans and Poles attempted to live
together in the same territories after the war.

And we can see that forcing the Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians to
live together only resulted in civil war, (twice) while separating them
has more or less calmed things down and the same goes for Hindus
and Muslims in India.

In all three cases the short term effects were obviously bad but the
long term effects of separating these groups have probably been for
the better.

And had the idea of complete population transfer been implemented
from the start in Israel/Palestine, by now the area might be reasonably
peaceful.

Sure, everybody would like to live in a world where shiny happy
people shake hands and bury the hatchet, but the reality is that many
groups simply hate each other and are more likely to bury the hatchet
in their neighbors head.

[alfred montestruc]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by alfred montestruc
The below is an advocation of a political plan to force people off their
native land to another place against their will. Alos in the process
disenfranchize them.
--------------------quote coyu----------------
I propose the should-have-been-cleansed be resettled in mainland
China, where they won't demographically swamp the pre-existing
population -- rather the reverse -- and where the blonde ones
should be especially popular. Also, the mainland's government has
harsh but fair policies regarding secession.
----------end quote---------------

It seems to me that Coyu was just doing a bit of sport fishing
(take that hook out of your mouth, Al) and wasn't actually
calling for genocide, so I don't see any reason to get worked
up about it.

I guess Jews in 1920's Germany should not have gotten worked up about "Mein
Kamph" either.

Post by Ed Stasiak
But I'm not so sure that population transfer _isn't_ a good idea
in some cases, if it could be done without bloodshed (thou that's
probably impossible).

Involintary? It is always an immoral thing. That would include the forced
remaval of various native American tribes. And I will not sit still for it.

As to the possibility of it being done without bloodshed, maybe for wussy
boy like you, try it on white american southerners and I wager you will have
a lot more than half of them shooting at you, and looking up your address
and coming to visit to discuss the matter face to face.

Post by Ed Stasiak
I think it would have been easier and more effective in the long run
to transfer African Americas somewhere else then white Southern
Americans, since the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S. will
likely always be a problem between blacks and whites.

Racial problems in the south are now a tiny fraction of what they were years
ago. I have traveled in the north and think the race problems in the north
are in some places worse than in the south. I would expect that a good many
black people would forcefully, violently object to any such thing, and might
well also be willing to come visit you and discuss it face to face. I would
not be willing to convict anyone who did as a member of a jury either, if
they were so provoked by people making serious political proposals of
"ethnic cleansing" against them.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Take the case of the Polish/German population transfer after WWII,
sure it was bloody but it did prevent the problems that would have
no doubt happened had the Germans and Poles attempted to live
together in the same territories after the war.

Southerners, both white and black get along a hell of a lot better than the
enthnic groups that you bring up, especially now. Probably better than
those other groups you name did even in the immediate post war era.

You don't get it. More than half of all slaves in the late slavery era was
owned by a person that had between 5 and 20 slaves. This is according to
the US census of 1860. That includes women, children and old folks, and
what that translates to is a typical slave owner being a farm family that
owns between 5 and 20 total slaves including women, children and old folks,
obviously the white farm family is probably going to number between two and
12 people. These were small close knit social groups, and that is how white
and black people lived in the south in those days, cheek and jowl, in each
others face 24/7. Whites did not get violent with their own slaves much at
all. Even beatings would reduce the resale value of a slave. The optiumum
was to hold onto slaves for life and not sell them other than as a
punishment for bad behavior, or as a rearrangement of family structure. An
example would be a son moving out to move to Texas from Alabama takes some
of the slaves with him, and buys the wife of a slave from another family to
keep them together. Slaves often if not most of the time married outside
the "family" of the slaves of a given family. When whites were violent with
blacks in that era it was ususally with other people's black slaves that had
run away or were misbehaving in town or such like.

The war and its aftermath broke up this social system, and caused much
physical displacement of people both black and white, and broke up such
groups. Southern whites of that era were socialized to not be violent to
their own blacks w/o cause, but to be very violent to blacks that were not
their own who were disrespectful or were otherwise seen as a problem, other
than with blacks with a visible owner who had them under control.

That era has long passed, and attitudes of both black and white southerners.

This was and is a vastly different situation from people who do not have the
same natve language, and who have very different religious beliefs, and who
are not used to living in close proximity.

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Ed Stasiak
It seems to me that Coyu was just doing a bit of sport fishing
(take that hook out of your mouth, Al) and wasn't actually
calling for genocide, so I don't see any reason to get worked
up about it.

I guess Jews in 1920's Germany should not have gotten worked
up about "Mein Kamph" either.

Hitler wasn't joking.

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Ed Stasiak
But I'm not so sure that population transfer _isn't_ a good idea
in some cases, if it could be done without bloodshed (thou that's
probably impossible).

Involintary? It is always an immoral thing.

I would think that any use of population transfer would be involuntary but
how immoral it is depends on the situation. Is it more immoral to transfer
and separate Serbs, Croats and Bosnians or to force them to live together
and continue to kill each other for generations?

In OTL these groups separated themselves thru civil war and thou it was
bloody, I think that now that they are separated, they will likely manage
to build peaceful and productive societies.

From an alt.history perspective, what if Yugoslavia had never been created
but instead the three separate nations had been set-up post-WWI, (thru the
use of population transfer) would it have been more or less immoral?

Post by alfred montestruc
That would include the forced remaval of various native American tribes.

That is an example of population transfer (done mostly the wrong way) thou
as it happened in the past, there is nothing that can be done about it now.

Post by alfred montestruc
And I will not sit still for it.

Don't confuse my discussing of alt.history in the this group with me necessarily
supporting all historical attempts at population transfer.

In the case of American Indians, it was obviously done badly and either could
have been avoided altogether or done in such a way as to not kill bazillions of
Indians and almost destroy their culture.

On the other hand (from a alt.hist. perspective) the Euro-Americans could have
wiped out all the Indians. As the options were probably limited to "kill 'em all"
or what ended up happening in OTL, (population transfer) which would you
have chosen?

Post by alfred montestruc
As to the possibility of it being done without bloodshed, maybe for wussy
boy like you, try it on white american southerners and I wager you will have
a lot more than half of them shooting at you, and looking up your address
and coming to visit to discuss the matter face to face.

I'm not suggesting that white Southerners be transferred _today_ or that it
would have been a good idea in the post-Civil War period. That's in the
past and population transfer isn't the answer to the problems between
black and white Americans today.

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Ed Stasiak
I think it would have been easier and more effective in the long run
to transfer African Americas somewhere else then white Southern
Americans, since the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S. will
likely always be a problem between blacks and whites.

Racial problems in the south are now a tiny fraction of what they were years
ago. I have traveled in the north and think the race problems in the north
are in some places worse than in the south.

And I'd agree. As a metro Detroit resident and from what I've heard about
the South, blacks and whites get along better down south then they do in the
North.

Post by alfred montestruc
I would expect that a good many black people would forcefully, violently
object to any such thing, and might well also be willing to come visit you
and discuss it face to face.

NOTE: I was talking about the _post-Civil war period_, not TODAY.

But I don't think I was wrong to say that there will always be problems
between blacks and whites in the U.S. due to the history of race relations
in this country, just as there will always be problems in India between
Hindus and Muslims because of the history of that region.

From the perspective of ALT.HIST., if population transfer had actually
been attempted after the Civil war, I believe that it would have been more
successful if blacks had been transferred and not white Southerners, since
the historical race relations problems would still be there if blacks remained
in the U.S. (as we can see in OTL).

Post by alfred montestruc
You don't get it.

No, you don't get it. There is a difference between discussing alt.hist and
discussing current events.

[alfred montestruc]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Ed Stasiak
It seems to me that Coyu was just doing a bit of sport fishing
(take that hook out of your mouth, Al) and wasn't actually
calling for genocide, so I don't see any reason to get worked
up about it.

I guess Jews in 1920's Germany should not have gotten worked
up about "Mein Kamph" either.

Hitler wasn't joking.

I see no evidence that Coyu was joking, and in 1920's Germany no one
took Hitler seriously about that other than a few die-hard Nazi
converts.

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Ed Stasiak
But I'm not so sure that population transfer _isn't_ a good idea
in some cases, if it could be done without bloodshed (thou that's
probably impossible).

Involintary? It is always an immoral thing.

I would think that any use of population transfer would be involuntary but
how immoral it is depends on the situation. Is it more immoral to transfer
and separate Serbs, Croats and Bosnians or to force them to live together
and continue to kill each other for generations?

Forcing them to live together is just as immoral as forcing one or
both parties to move. If they want to fight it out, that is really
none of your business unless you live there.

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by alfred montestruc
As to the possibility of it being done without bloodshed, maybe for wussy
boy like you, try it on white american southerners and I wager you will have
a lot more than half of them shooting at you, and looking up your address
and coming to visit to discuss the matter face to face.

I'm not suggesting that white Southerners be transferred _today_

Read his post that is what HE suggested, that is why I am up in arms.


http://tinyurl.com/5fcza

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Ed Stasiak
Hitler wasn't joking.

I see no evidence that Coyu was joking, and in 1920's Germany no
one took Hitler seriously about that other than a few die-hard Nazi
converts.

Until Coyu grows a funny little mustache, I ain't going to lose any sleep
over his comments.

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Ed Stasiak
Is it more immoral to transfer and separate Serbs, Croats and
Bosnians or to force them to live together and continue to kill
each other for generations?

Forcing them to live together is just as immoral as forcing one or
both parties to move. If they want to fight it out, that is really
none of your business unless you live there.

That's true but there are also the thousands of lives that will be lost if
nothing is done and like Israel/Palestine today, there is the potential for
future problems that will affect me.

It doesn't have to be a case of either/or, just that sometimes population
transfer might be the right course to follow.

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Ed Stasiak
I'm not suggesting that white Southerners be transferred _today_

Read his post that is what HE suggested, that is why I am up in arms.

Ya I read it and to me; he's joking even if maybe he really doesn't like
white Southerners.

[Jordan Abel]

Post by alfred montestruc
I see no evidence that Coyu was joking, and in 1920's Germany no one
took Hitler seriously about that other than a few die-hard Nazi
converts.

I think he was, and furthermore i don't see grounds for TOS even if he
wasn't (maybe you could clarify what you're basing this on?)

[alfred montestruc]

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by alfred montestruc
I see no evidence that Coyu was joking, and in 1920's Germany no one
took Hitler seriously about that other than a few die-hard Nazi
converts.

I think he was, and furthermore i don't see grounds for TOS even if he
wasn't (maybe you could clarify what you're basing this on?)

First off sir read it.

http://tinyurl.com/5fcza

-------quote coyu post-----

And hey, there's still time! Compared to the US average, yes, the
should-have-been-cleansed are poor and poorly educated; but
compared to many countries, they're stinking rich and some even
have high school diplomas. We can resettle the lands with hard-
working immigrants, Zulus or Mexicans or something.

I propose the should-have-been-cleansed be resettled in mainland
China, where they won't demographically swamp the pre-existing
population -- rather the reverse -- and where the blonde ones
should be especially popular. Also, the mainland's government has
harsh but fair policies regarding secession.
------------end quote


I gather that you think advocation of mass murder, and/or "ethnic
clensing" in the future tense as to how to deal with what the author
thinks is an ethnic problem in the USA is all hunky dory by AOL TOS?

How do you think AOL would react if the group he suggested this about
were of the same ethnic background as say, Bob Kolker? Or perhaps if
he advocated that people with a minority, sexual preference should be
treated that way.

Equal justice for all, or justice for none. Those are the choices.

[robert j. kolker]

Post by alfred montestruc
First off sir read it.

I did. His toungue was so far into his cheek it came out his ear.

Bob Kolker

[Dan Childers]

Er, I'll trigger Godwin's Law here--er, "I guess
then the only problem with Hitler is that he chose
the wrong target set. If he'd been going about the
Final Solution to the Redneck Problem, it'd have
been OK." There, that should do it.

[alfred montestruc]

Post by Dan Childers
Er, I'll trigger Godwin's Law here--er, "I guess
then the only problem with Hitler is that he chose
the wrong target set. If he'd been going about the
Final Solution to the Redneck Problem, it'd have
been OK." There, that should do it.

Godwin can write his moronic opinion down on some nice 20lb bond
paper, fold it up till it is all sharp corners, and shove it.

[Dan Childers]

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Dan Childers
Er, I'll trigger Godwin's Law here--er, "I guess
then the only problem with Hitler is that he chose
the wrong target set. If he'd been going about the
Final Solution to the Redneck Problem, it'd have
been OK." There, that should do it.

Godwin can write his moronic opinion down on some nice 20lb bond
paper, fold it up till it is all sharp corners, and shove it.

You misunderstand. I'm agreeing with *you* on this point. Having
been born in Alabama, I'm probably one of Coyu's "should-have-been-
cleansed."

[RoniLynn]

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Jordan Abel

Post by alfred montestruc
I see no evidence that Coyu was joking, and in 1920's Germany no one
took Hitler seriously about that other than a few die-hard Nazi
converts.

I think he was, and furthermore i don't see grounds for TOS even if he
wasn't (maybe you could clarify what you're basing this on?)

First off sir read it.

Post by Jordan Abel
-------quote coyu post-----

And hey, there's still time! Compared to the US average, yes, the
should-have-been-cleansed are poor and poorly educated; but
compared to many countries, they're stinking rich and some even
have high school diplomas. We can resettle the lands with hard-
working immigrants, Zulus or Mexicans or something.
I propose the should-have-been-cleansed be resettled in mainland
China, where they won't demographically swamp the pre-existing
population -- rather the reverse -- and where the blonde ones
should be especially popular. Also, the mainland's government has
harsh but fair policies regarding secession.
------------end quote
I gather that you think advocation of mass murder, and/or "ethnic
clensing" in the future tense as to how to deal with what the author
thinks is an ethnic problem in the USA is all hunky dory by AOL TOS?
How do you think AOL would react if the group he suggested this about
were of the same ethnic background as say, Bob Kolker? Or perhaps if
he advocated that people with a minority, sexual preference should be
treated that way.
Equal justice for all, or justice for none. Those are the choices.

LOL! Ok...This is coming direct from a gal in Mississippi right to
you.

First off:

I am in the medical profession. So I am not "poorly educated" but
instead a highly productive member of my community. As a member of the
"should-have-been-cleansed" I find that type of stereotyping
laughable.

I also was on stand-by to assist those that were hurt in the Oklahoma
bombing and the 911 attacks. Which means that I was willing to put my
life on the line for my country and to help anyone who needed it. Be
they African-American, Caucasian, Hispanic, Arab, Indian (American and
Hindu) or who ever would have cried out to me.


Second off:

I am very sorry Mr. Coyu, but you will not be able to just "resettle"
us southerners right off to China. Deal with it ^_^

And to all you that decided to just agree with an idea so ridiculous:

Shame On You!

Do you kiss your Mothers with mouths that spout such hatred? I most
certainly hope not.

Ms. RoniLynn

[Jordan179]

Post by alfred montestruc
I gather that you think advocation of mass murder, and/or "ethnic
clensing" in the future tense as to how to deal with what the author
thinks is an ethnic problem in the USA is all hunky dory by AOL TOS?

I suspect that Coyu's Surrender Squad buddies like Little Dougie Muir,
"Faith in Fornication" Sophia, Walter Strapps-On, and so forth believe
that it's all hunky-dory if _Coyu_ advocates it.

Post by alfred montestruc
How do you think AOL would react if the group he suggested this about
were of the same ethnic background as say, Bob Kolker? Or perhaps if
he advocated that people with a minority, sexual preference should be
treated that way.

Coyu, for example, originally started persecuting _me_ because I
advocated the strategic bombardment of Iranian cities in the Hostage
Crisis. He called this a "genocidal" policy, yet I did not advocate
killing the Iranians _after_ they surrendered, only bombarding them
_into_ surrender. By contrast, Coyu here called for the mass murder
of unresisting fellow American citizens, not of the killing of enemies
in wartime.

Post by alfred montestruc
Equal justice for all, or justice for none. Those are the choices.

Then there's Coyu's choice: "I can say anything I want and it's ok
but what everyone else says is _verboten_ if I don't like it."

To which the Surrender Squad has repeatedly and explicity signed on
to, if you remember.

How much longer are you going to let them run shwi?

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Walter R. Strapps]

*sigh*

Whack-a-troll time again (is it October already?)

Keith Morrison providing cites for Jordan's lies about things that Keith
didn't say:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BA92478.2E21EE8%40polarnet.ca&output=gplain

Arthur Rimbaud exposing your... predelictions:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bloef%24qkr%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain

Here is where he accused me, a person who lives in New York, of advocating
'surrender to terrorists' after Sept. 11, 2001 but never bothered to provide
a cite, because it didn't exist:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3985676403d&dq=&hl=en&selm=20010918110703.07474.00000769%40mb-fl.aol.com

Here is where he made threats about turning me into the FBI for the
capital crime of disagreeing with Jordan S. Bassior:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20011013035352.13290.00001488%40mb-cb.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Doug Muir's brief dissection of Jordan and the "Exploits on ebay" phase of
Bassior's 'carreer':

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A244CC3.8D9E7B87%40yale.edu&output=gplain

Heck, here's a whole thread which brings us up to April, 2000 with the
madness that calls itself Jordan S. Bassior:

Search google groups for "OT: Why people hate Jordan Bassior"

Since bringing up Jordan's lies and behaviour seems to be a quite effective
way (as evidenced by past history) of driving him away from SHWI for many
months at a time, I invite the non-under-bridge dwelling denizens to provide
the examples and cites so we can banish this thing again.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[alfred montestruc]

Post by Mike Ralls
*sigh*
Whack-a-troll time again (is it October already?)
Keith Morrison providing cites for Jordan's lies about things that Keith
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BA92478.2E21EE8%40polarnet.ca&output=gplain

According to the cite he "asserts" but does not prove any such lies.
He uses a lot of his own words to assert Jordon lied, but he hever
cites a post jordon made. Sorry that don't get it.

Post by Mike Ralls
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bloef%24qkr%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain

According to the post the girl involved was 16 years old at the time
as so was above age of consent in several states of the USA and the
two other large Nations on the North America, the last by a
significant amount, in that the age of consent is 14 in Canada, and 13
in Mexico. I think it is older than all the other nations on the
North American aside from some rather prudish U.S. States. It is also
above the age of consent of nearly all advanced industrial nations of
Europe, or almost anywhere. So even if they were making like bunny
rabbits, it proves nothing.

In any case no sex was asseted to have taken place, and as far as I
can tell from the post nothing criminal at all, nor wrong by
reasonable standerds (I do not think that blue-nosed prude standerds
are "reasonable") and nothing that I would object to were she my
daughter or sister. If she objected, that was her choice, no one
showed to me that she objected directly to Jordan, and if she did not
object to Jordon, so what?

Post by Mike Ralls
Here is where he accused me, a person who lives in New York, of advocating
'surrender to terrorists' after Sept. 11, 2001 but never bothered to provide
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3985676403d&dq=&hl=en&selm=20010918110703.07474.00000769%40mb-fl.aol.com

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and it was shortly after the
attack and a lot of people's blood was up. So what? No party cited
what he was talking about so we cannot judge whether his statment is
at all reasonable.

Post by Mike Ralls
Here is where he made threats about turning me into the FBI for the
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20011013035352.13290.00001488%40mb-cb.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

That was a joke Mr Strapps, an obvious one. If you have no sense of
humor, and no willingness to be made the butt of a joke, then I feel
sorry for you.

Post by Mike Ralls
Doug Muir's brief dissection of Jordan and the "Exploits on ebay" phase of
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A244CC3.8D9E7B87%40yale.edu&output=gplain

If Mr. Bassior has committed fraud, the place to present evidence is
in a court of law, not to make an off-topic post to SHWI. The
"evidence" presented is not (evidence) it is an accusation, nothing
more. If it were presented in court it would not survive an objection
as hearsay.

I have seen no evidence presented by someone who asserts that Jordon
defrauded him, only hearsay, and that is not evidence. It was also
made by a sycophant of coyu, and so not a credible source.

Post by Mike Ralls
Heck, here's a whole thread which brings us up to April, 2000 with the
Search google groups for "OT: Why people hate Jordan Bassior"

A lynch mob, led by the likes of Cujo the Psycho, attacking someone
does not evidence make against that person of any crime or wrongdoing.

Post by Mike Ralls
Since bringing up Jordan's lies and behaviour

What lies? Do you have any direct evidence of Jordon lying? I mean
based on HIS posts and facts that can be proven, not opinions?

I doubt it, but you are welcome to try.

[ccc31807]

Post by alfred montestruc
Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.

So you don't like the concept of ethnic cleansing? Perhaps the only
reason is that in some countries it's out of style. For instance, try
reading the book of Joshua, or some of the Psalms (68 and 137, for
example). As long as it was the Jews destroying Canaanite towns and
putting every person to the sword, it was okay, but was turn about
fair play? Uh uh.

As it is, George Bush is presently advocating a form of genocide, as
we (the Americans) think it's great. Just depends on whose gene pool
you want to wipe out, that's all.

BTW, I'm not advocating genocide or approving it. I'm just making the
point that particular groups humans have always killed other groups of
humans. It's a little like saying that the answer to murder is to kill
all the murderers.

CC

[robert j. kolker]

Post by ccc31807
humans. It's a little like saying that the answer to murder is to kill
all the murderers.

Killing a murderer is not murder (wrongful killing). You have a very
good idea there.

Bob Kolker

[alfred montestruc]

Post by ccc31807

Post by alfred montestruc
Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.

So you don't like the concept of ethnic cleansing? Perhaps the only
reason is that in some countries it's out of style. For instance, try
reading the book of Joshua, or some of the Psalms (68 and 137, for
example). As long as it was the Jews destroying Canaanite towns and
putting every person to the sword, it was okay, but was turn about
fair play? Uh uh.

Ethnic cleansing of one's own countrymen who have done neither you,
nor anyone else something to deserve it, other than that a majority of
the group to be ethnically cleansed disagree with you on political
matters is the issue at hand.

This was not a discussion of dealing with persons of other nations
with whom we are at war. It was a discussion by Carlos Yu of how to
deal with his countrymen with whom he politically disagrees, or
imagines he does.

Post by ccc31807
As it is, George Bush is presently advocating a form of genocide,

Not that I have heard, please cite it. I am politically opposed to
him so I would like more ammo on the subject.

Post by ccc31807
as
we (the Americans) think it's great. Just depends on whose gene pool
you want to wipe out, that's all.
BTW, I'm not advocating genocide or approving it. I'm just making the
point that particular groups humans have always killed other groups of
humans. It's a little like saying that the answer to murder is to kill
all the murderers.
CC

[ccc31807]

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by ccc31807
As it is, George Bush is presently advocating a form of genocide,

Not that I have heard, please cite it. I am politically opposed to
him so I would like more ammo on the subject.

W wants to kill the terrorists. That is, he is not opposed to the
method (killing) but the groups killed (terrorists).

This is in no sense "ammo" on the subject. Those who oppose abortion
usually favor capital punishment, while those who favor abortion
rights usually oppose capital punishment ... and neither group sees
any inconsistency in its position.

As long as you favor killing any identifible group of people, whether
it be American Indians, Jews, Hutus, or terrorsists, you favor
genocide.

CC

[alfred montestruc]

Post by ccc31807

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by ccc31807
As it is, George Bush is presently advocating a form of genocide,

Not that I have heard, please cite it. I am politically opposed to
him so I would like more ammo on the subject.

W wants to kill the terrorists. That is, he is not opposed to the
method (killing) but the groups killed (terrorists).

Terrorist is not a ethnic term. One can have a terroist of any ethnic
backgroud, either sex, and most political opinions (not I think an
honest Ghandian Pacifist).

Genocide is the mass murder of people of a specific ethnic group with
the intent of exterminating them or at least removal of them from a
specific area.

Terrorist is term used to define either a criminal or an enemy
combatent that uses violence to accdomplish political obectives
specifically terrorizing people into giving in to the political
demands of the terrorists.

Your use of the term does not make sense. Too bad.

Post by ccc31807
This is in no sense "ammo" on the subject. Those who oppose abortion
usually favor capital punishment, while those who favor abortion
rights usually oppose capital punishment ... and neither group sees
any inconsistency in its position.

Generally they are not inconsistent.

The right to life person holds that life begins at conception and that
a human life is not seperate from personhood, and that a right to life
exists until one violates the rights of others. Being killed by
another in self-defence or being killed after being sentenced to death
by a jury for the violation of the rights of another are acceptable.
The violation of the rights of others being required to kill someone
justly.

Those who hold that abortion should be legal hold that a human life is
not a person till born and that killing of a person cannot be justifed
except in self-defence (if then).

Post by ccc31807
As long as you favor killing any identifible group of people, whether
it be American Indians, Jews, Hutus, or terrorsists, you favor
genocide.

Nope. You are changing the definitions.

[Jordan179]

Post by ccc31807
As it is, George Bush is presently advocating a form of genocide, as
we (the Americans) think it's great. Just depends on whose gene pool
you want to wipe out, that's all.

Just whom (do you imagine) is George Bush advocating "a form of genocide" against?

(NB - Killing enemies who are in arms against one is NOT "genocide.")

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[ccc31807]

Post by Jordan179
Just whom (do you imagine) is George Bush advocating "a form of genocide" against?
(NB - Killing enemies who are in arms against one is NOT "genocide.")

As W. himself might say, killing is killing. If you are in favor of
killing anyone, you are in favor of killing.

I agree that some killing might be excusable, or even justifiable, but
it's still killing. And ... killing members of an identifiable group
is "genocide" whether the identity be racial, ethnic, religious, or
ideological.

BTW, according to John Edwards in the veep debate last night, Kerry
also favors killing terrorists. Thus, I would say the same thing about
him.

CC

[Jordan179]

Post by ccc31807

Post by Jordan179
Just whom (do you imagine) is George Bush advocating "a form of genocide" against?
(NB - Killing enemies who are in arms against one is NOT "genocide.")

As W. himself might say, killing is killing. If you are in favor of
killing anyone, you are in favor of killing.

... under the cirumstances that you are in favor of killing, that is.
Being in favor of killing in self-defense, or of killing members of an
organization which has already gone to war with oneself, is not the
same thing as being in favor of killing without provocation, or of
killing people purely because of their ethnicity (the definition of
_attempted_ "genocide").

Post by ccc31807
I agree that some killing might be excusable, or even justifiable, but
it's still killing. And ... killing members of an identifiable group
is "genocide" whether the identity be racial, ethnic, religious, or
ideological.

By that definition, _any_ killing would be "genocide." This expands
the point to insignificance, and robs us of a useful category.

Post by ccc31807
BTW, according to John Edwards in the veep debate last night, Kerry
also favors killing terrorists. Thus, I would say the same thing about
him.

By your definition, any responsible state leader would be "genocidal,"
since any responsible state leader must favor killing enemies in arms
against his people.

If your definition were accepted, the distinction between genocide and
non-genocidal killing would vanish. This would favor none but the
TRULY genocidal.

Thus, I reject your definition as impractical and useless in a
description of reality.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Mike T.]

Who lit the fuse on your tampon?

[alfred montestruc]

Post by Mike T.
Who lit the fuse on your tampon?

I think that it might perhaps have been your mommy's tampon young man.
I don't use them.

[Mike Ralls]

This is rediculous. I didn't like the post and said so, but I almost
didn't because I thought that some goober would would pick it up and
go to some nutty extreme. *sigh* Oh well. Alfred, really just drop
your bief with Carlos and MOVE ON. Really, what do you get from all
this? You'll be happier and usenet will be better off.

--
Mike Ralls

[alfred montestruc]

Post by Mike Ralls
This is rediculous. I didn't like the post and said so, but I almost
didn't because I thought that some goober would would pick it up and
go to some nutty extreme. *sigh* Oh well. Alfred, really just drop
your bief with Carlos and MOVE ON.

I guess you think that some Jewish man in 1920s Germany should "just
move on" and not raise hell about the political opinions expressed in
a book called "Mein Kamph" by one A. Hitler.

All, due respect sir, I object to persons advocating genocide or
ethnic cleansing, especially when they have not a shred of provocation
and even more especially the intended subjects of "ethnic cleansing"
are me and my kinfolk, I will not "move on".

I gather that you think "ethnic cleansing" against people you have
political disputes with is socially acceptable to propose as a serious
alternative in dealing with political opposition in your own country?

His mind has the stink of a slaughterhouse, and the evasion of
responsibility of a Nazi at Nuremberg.

It seems really odd to me that you tell me to "move on" because I
oppose violence and mass murder, and the advocating of it for
political ends, and you object to Carlos's post only because "you
don't like it". Why don't you like it? Could it be because it is
immoral?

My "bief" (sic) with Carlos is not going to be dropped, nor has my
beef with people who think that mass murder is an acceptable political
alternative for discussion has never ended.

Post by Mike Ralls
Really, what do you get from all
this?

The moral satisfaction of doing the right thing. I will no more back
down to you (or everyone in the whole flipping world) on this issue
than General McAuliffe would back down to the Nazis at Bastogne.

What Mr.Carlos Yu posted was immoral, and fundamentally monstrous and
evil in that not only did he advocate mass murder, he advocated mass
murder/ethnic cleansing of his countrymen for having a political
difference of opinion with him, not for any wrong done him, or anyone
else.

This was not a discussion of how to deal with an enemy in a war, or
venting anger at an attack on one's own people. This was, even if
joking, a demonizing and dehumanizing of political enemies who were
his own countrymen who have done no wrong to deserve it.

Post by Mike Ralls
You'll be happier and usenet will be better off.

Wrong, on both counts. What would make the world better off in this
regard is for you, and everyone else, to start treating the one
specific individual, Mr. Yu, with the contempt he has earned.

[robert j. kolker]

Post by alfred montestruc
I guess you think that some Jewish man in 1920s Germany should "just
move on" and not raise hell about the political opinions expressed in
a book called "Mein Kamph" by one A. Hitler.

That is pretty well what happened.

Be that as it may, a person has a perfect right to advocate, -in the
abstract-, the collective destruction of those he perceives or judges to
be enemies of himself, his family and even his nation. Genocide,
ethonicide are particular instances of this. The matter becomes
problematical when specific and concrete steps are taken to instantiate
the abstract proposition.

Needless to say no one needs to -like- such advocacy and such a person
who dislikes it should raise (legal) hell to oppose it if he feels the
heat of the Dragon's Breath on the back of his neck.

Post by alfred montestruc
All, due respect sir, I object to persons advocating genocide or
ethnic cleansing, especially when they have not a shred of provocation
and even more especially the intended subjects of "ethnic cleansing"
are me and my kinfolk, I will not "move on".

Your objection is duly noted.

Post by alfred montestruc
I gather that you think "ethnic cleansing" against people you have
political disputes with is socially acceptable to propose as a serious
alternative in dealing with political opposition in your own country?

It worked with the American aboriginals from the time of Andrew Jackson
through the time or Wounded Knee. One can hardly argue with success.

Post by alfred montestruc
His mind has the stink of a slaughterhouse, and the evasion of
responsibility of a Nazi at Nuremberg.

Your distaste is duly noted.

Post by alfred montestruc
It seems really odd to me that you tell me to "move on" because I
oppose violence and mass murder, and the advocating of it for
political ends, and you object to Carlos's post only because "you
don't like it". Why don't you like it? Could it be because it is
immoral?

Morality is opinion.

Post by alfred montestruc
My "bief" (sic) with Carlos is not going to be dropped, nor has my
beef with people who think that mass murder is an acceptable political
alternative for discussion has never ended.

Do you want to fight with me also? I dream fondly of a world without
Islam. I note that ideas are hard to kill, but people are easy to kill.
Draw your own conclusions from that.

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Mike Ralls
Really, what do you get from all
this?

The moral satisfaction of doing the right thing. I will no more back
down to you (or everyone in the whole flipping world) on this issue
than General McAuliffe would back down to the Nazis at Bastogne.

Nuts! He says.

Post by alfred montestruc
What Mr.Carlos Yu posted was immoral, and fundamentally monstrous and
evil in that not only did he advocate mass murder, he advocated mass
murder/ethnic cleansing of his countrymen for having a political
difference of opinion with him, not for any wrong done him, or anyone
else.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why haven't you taken me on first?

Post by alfred montestruc
This was not a discussion of how to deal with an enemy in a war, or
venting anger at an attack on one's own people. This was, even if
joking, a demonizing and dehumanizing of political enemies who were
his own countrymen who have done no wrong to deserve it.

Jeeesus! This happens all the time. It is as natural as breathing.

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Mike Ralls
You'll be happier and usenet will be better off.

Wrong, on both counts. What would make the world better off in this
regard is for you, and everyone else, to start treating the one
specific individual, Mr. Yu, with the contempt he has earned.

You make too much of Cujo who is a Legend in His Own Mind. Yu Hu is
often wind and hot air, although he comes up with interesting material
from time to time. Why descend to his level? Just treat him as the minor
nuisance he is. This is a small price to pay for freedom of expression.

Bob Kolker

[alfred montestruc]

Post by robert j. kolker

Post by alfred montestruc
I guess you think that some Jewish man in 1920s Germany should "just
move on" and not raise hell about the political opinions expressed in
a book called "Mein Kamph" by one A. Hitler.

That is pretty well what happened.

Well if they were on the ball and started screaming bloody murder and
otherwise raising hell I suspect they might have lived longer and had
grandkids.

Post by robert j. kolker

Post by alfred montestruc
I gather that you think "ethnic cleansing" against people you have
political disputes with is socially acceptable to propose as a serious
alternative in dealing with political opposition in your own country?

It worked with the American aboriginals from the time of Andrew Jackson
through the time or Wounded Knee. One can hardly argue with success.

They may have lived in territory claimed by the USA, but were not legally or
socially part of the same society or citizens of the same nation. That does
not make it right, but more understandable.

Post by robert j. kolker

Post by alfred montestruc
My "bief" (sic) with Carlos is not going to be dropped, nor has my
beef with people who think that mass murder is an acceptable political
alternative for discussion has never ended.

Do you want to fight with me also? I dream fondly of a world without
Islam. I note that ideas are hard to kill, but people are easy to kill.
Draw your own conclusions from that.

I have not noted that you have expressed a desire to kill, or provoke the
government kill for you, people that you see as being of the same society as
you, and who are, and have been willing to operate inside the political
system in a fair and reasonable manner, and have committed no crime against
you or anyone else.

If or when I do, I will be just as nasty to you.

Post by robert j. kolker

Post by alfred montestruc

Post by Mike Ralls
Really, what do you get from all
this?

The moral satisfaction of doing the right thing. I will no more back
down to you (or everyone in the whole flipping world) on this issue
than General McAuliffe would back down to the Nazis at Bastogne.

Nuts! He says.

Post by alfred montestruc
What Mr.Carlos Yu posted was immoral, and fundamentally monstrous and
evil in that not only did he advocate mass murder, he advocated mass
murder/ethnic cleansing of his countrymen for having a political
difference of opinion with him, not for any wrong done him, or anyone
else.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why haven't you taken me on first?

When have you advocated the mass murder of an ethnic class of Americas that
have done you nor anyone else any wrong (as a class) in living memory?

Post by robert j. kolker

Post by alfred montestruc
This was not a discussion of how to deal with an enemy in a war, or
venting anger at an attack on one's own people. This was, even if
joking, a demonizing and dehumanizing of political enemies who were
his own countrymen who have done no wrong to deserve it.

Jeeesus! This happens all the time. It is as natural as breathing.

I do not agree.

[a***@pacific.net.au]

On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:32:37 GMT, "robert j. kolker"
<***@nowhere.com> wrote:

<Hey, you're posting from an address that cujo doesn't approve of!>

<Has the attack puppy savaged you yet?>

Post by robert j. kolker
Be that as it may, a person has a perfect right to advocate, -in the
abstract-, the collective destruction of those he perceives or judges to

Doesn't that qualify as "conspiracy"?

And, if so, isn't "conspiracy" a crime in the US?

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au (not the munged address vs spambots)

[robert j. kolker]

Post by a***@pacific.net.au
Doesn't that qualify as "conspiracy"?
And, if so, isn't "conspiracy" a crime in the US?

Wrong. Conspiracy, by definition requires two or more parties working
together to produce concrete plans to commit a crime. A single person
advocating a goal is not part of a conspiracy, even if another person
takes inpsiration.

For example the late Wm Pierce who wrote -The Turner Diaries- was never
indicted for conspiracy in bomb plots inspired by his story. Why?
Because he never sat down with the bombers to plan the crime.

Bob Kolker

[Dan Swartzendruber]

In article <***@news.pacific.net.au>, ***@pacific.net.au
says...

Post by a***@pacific.net.au
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:32:37 GMT, "robert j. kolker"
<Hey, you're posting from an address that cujo doesn't approve of!>
<Has the attack puppy savaged you yet?>

Post by robert j. kolker
Be that as it may, a person has a perfect right to advocate, -in the
abstract-, the collective destruction of those he perceives or judges to

Doesn't that qualify as "conspiracy"?

Not to my knowledge, no. Incitement, maybe.

Post by a***@pacific.net.au
And, if so, isn't "conspiracy" a crime in the US?

Conspiracy is a crime in the US, yes.

[robert j. kolker]

Post by Dan Swartzendruber
Not to my knowledge, no. Incitement, maybe.

Not if it is done in the context of an essay or a novel or other written
work or in private conversation.

Whipping up a crowd to commit illegal actions is incitement, but proving
justifications and resons for doing an illegal act is not incitement as
such.

Bob Kolker

[Jordan179]

Post by a***@pacific.net.au
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:32:37 GMT, "robert j. kolker"
<Hey, you're posting from an address that cujo doesn't approve of!>
<Has the attack puppy savaged you yet?>

Post by robert j. kolker
Be that as it may, a person has a perfect right to advocate, -in the
abstract-, the collective destruction of those he perceives or judges to

Doesn't that qualify as "conspiracy"?

No, unless one actually does something in pursuit of an illegal
objective. For instance, if I _advocated in the abstract_ harassing
you (for instance by trying to make you lose your job or business) it
would be perfectly legal. On the other hand, if I or my friends took
action towards this goal (for instance by hacking into your e-mail
account, as Coyu did to you; or making a fraudulent bid on eBay with
the intent of then pulling out and negging the rating, as Little
Dougie Muir did to me) THAT would be illegal.

Direct threats of violence, such those which Walter Strapps-On has
repeatedly made to me, are also illegal. (Though humorous, coming
from him).

But wait, I forgot, the Surrender Squad has a Divine Exception To The
Rules. Or something.

Post by a***@pacific.net.au
And, if so, isn't "conspiracy" a crime in the US?

Indeed. Sadly, not all crimes are prosecuted.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Walter R. Strapps]

Post by a***@pacific.net.au
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:32:37 GMT, "robert j. kolker"

*sigh*

Whack-a-troll time again (is it October already?)

Keith Morrison providing cites for Jordan's lies about things that Keith
didn't say:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BA92478.2E21EE8%40polarnet.ca&output=gplain

Arthur Rimbaud exposing your... predelictions:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bloef%24qkr%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain

Here is where he accused me, a person who lives in New York, of advocating
'surrender to terrorists' after Sept. 11, 2001 but never bothered to provide
a cite, because it didn't exist:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3985676403d&dq=&hl=en&selm=20010918110703.07474.00000769%40mb-fl.aol.com

Here is where he made threats about turning me into the FBI for the
capital crime of disagreeing with Jordan S. Bassior:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20011013035352.13290.00001488%40mb-cb.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Doug Muir's brief dissection of Jordan and the "Exploits on ebay" phase of
Bassior's 'carreer':

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A244CC3.8D9E7B87%40yale.edu&output=gplain

Heck, here's a whole thread which brings us up to April, 2000 with the
madness that calls itself Jordan S. Bassior:

Search google groups for "OT: Why people hate Jordan Bassior"

Since bringing up Jordan's lies and behaviour seems to be a quite effective
way (as evidenced by past history) of driving him away from SHWI for many
months at a time, I invite the non-under-bridge dwelling denizens to provide
the examples and cites so we can banish this thing again.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[Jordan179]

Post by Walter R. Strapps
Since bringing up Jordan's lies

"failure to agree with Coyu's paranoid theories about himself."

Post by Walter R. Strapps
and behaviour

"as alleged by Coyu and the Surrender Squad."

Post by Walter R. Strapps
seems to be a quite effective
way (as evidenced by past history) of driving him away from SHWI for many
months at a time, I invite the non-under-bridge dwelling denizens to provide
the examples and cites so we can banish this thing again.

Oh, no, Walter, you don't get it.

Bringing that up in the context of positive, creative
alternate-historical posts and criticism worked because it destroyed
my enthusiasm for contributing to a group in which rudeness and
personal attacks like yours were (apparently) tolerated by the
majority of the posters.

But this isn't alternate-history. I can trade insults with a pompous,
self-inflated fool like you for as long as it amuses me. All you've
_ever_ discouraged from me is _contributions_ to shwi.
Congratulations, on sabotaging your own charter.

Helping to expose the true nature of this group to any and all
remaining naive observers, who think this really is about alternate
history, is just plain FUN.

Cheers.

Jordan

[Walter R. Strapps]

Keith Morrison providing cites for Jordan's lies about things that Keith
didn't say:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3BA92478.2E21EE8%40polarnet.ca&output=gplain

Arthur Rimbaud exposing your... predelictions:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8bloef%24qkr%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&output=gplain

Here is where he accused me, a person who lives in New York, of advocating
'surrender to terrorists' after Sept. 11, 2001 but never bothered to provide
a cite, because it didn't exist:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3985676403d&dq=&hl=en&selm=20010918110703.07474.00000769%40mb-fl.aol.com

Here is where he made threats about turning me into the FBI for the
capital crime of disagreeing with Jordan S. Bassior:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20011013035352.13290.00001488%40mb-cb.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

Doug Muir's brief dissection of Jordan and the "Exploits on ebay" phase of
Bassior's 'carreer':

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3A244CC3.8D9E7B87%40yale.edu&output=gplain

Heck, here's a whole thread which brings us up to April, 2000 with the
madness that calls itself Jordan S. Bassior:

Search google groups for "OT: Why people hate Jordan Bassior"

Since bringing up Jordan's lies and behaviour seems to be a quite effective
way (as evidenced by past history) of driving him away from SHWI for many
months at a time, I invite the non-under-bridge dwelling denizens to provide
the examples and cites so we can banish this thing again.

Cheers,

Walter R. Strapps

[a***@pacific.net.au]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:58:14 -0400, "Walter R. Strapps"
<***@sentigen.com> wrote:

So, Walter, what do *you* think of someone who hacks illegally and
immorally into a private email account and simply cannot admit that
they have committed an illegal and immoral act.

Or can Carlos do no wrong, in your opinion.

Enquiring minds want to know if you have merely been deluded by Carlos
or if there is another reason for not censuring his behaviour
publically.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU), RBB #1 (FASA), Road to Armageddon (PGD).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au (not the munged address vs spambots)

[Rob]

Post by Mike Ralls
This is rediculous. I didn't like the post and said so, but I almost
didn't because I thought that some goober would would pick it up and
go to some nutty extreme. *sigh* Oh well. Alfred, really just drop
your bief with Carlos and MOVE ON. Really, what do you get from all
this? You'll be happier and usenet will be better off.

What's the difference between what Carlos said about white southernors
and what SM Stirling said about Muslims? I can't see anything other
than greater repetition on Stirling's part.

[Coyu]

Post by Rob
What's the difference between what Carlos said about white southernors
and what SM Stirling said about Muslims?

The answer to that is fairly easy. You're a smart guy, you figure it out.

I'll wait for the apology.

[Jonathan I. Edelstein]

On 2 October 2004, Rob wrote:

[deletia]

Post by Rob
What's the difference between what Carlos said about white southernors
and what SM Stirling said about Muslims?

At the time, Carlos' post seemed to me like very heavy sarcasm rather
than actual advocacy of ethnic cleansing. It shouldn't have been said,
both because sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet and
because ethnic cleansing isn't really a proper subject for jokes, but
I don't think it was the moral equivalent of Stirling's statement.

Jonathan Edelstein

"Who is wise? He who learns from all." -- Ben Zoma, Pirkei Avot 4:1

[robert j. kolker]

Post by Jonathan I. Edelstein
because ethnic cleansing isn't really a proper subject for jokes, but
I don't think it was the moral equivalent of Stirling's statement.

Is sarcasm/satire or the lack of it a moral matter?

Bob Kolker

[alfred montestruc]

Post by Jonathan I. Edelstein
[deletia]

Post by Rob
What's the difference between what Carlos said about white southernors
and what SM Stirling said about Muslims?

At the time, Carlos' post seemed to me like very heavy sarcasm rather
than actual advocacy of ethnic cleansing. It shouldn't have been said,
both because sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet and
because ethnic cleansing isn't really a proper subject for jokes, but
I don't think it was the moral equivalent of Stirling's statement.

Yes it was much worse. Coyu was advocation of killing off an ethnic group
of his own countrymen for politically disagreeing with him, while Sterling
feels it a self-defence necessity based on actual attacks.

[Coyu]

Let me weigh in on the subject.

It seems fairly clear, on reading this silly thread, that:

a) Al's nuts.

b) Just as Al can't discern what is or is not a reliable source
of information, he can't tell what is or is not satire or humor.

c) Al has no impulse control whatsoever.

d) Al is willing to put his libertarian principles aside whenever
he feels aggrieved. Whoo! There they go! Just like Lincoln.

e) Al's nuts. Actually, he has admitted seeing a psychologist
about his anger management issues. The sessions don't seem to be
going so well.

However, it still doesn't beat the time Al accused me of raping
two-year-olds. Which leads to:

f) Al's nuts. No sane person would think Al has a microgram of
credibility after his prior malicious, libelous, unbelievable,
and completely false attacks against me.

So the situation is, a lying, unprincipled, ignorant fool with no
apparent control over his temper is trying to do his best to throw
some dirt that sticks at someone he doesn't like who isn't in the
wrong.

Pretty much anyone with a grasp of human nature -- this does not
include Al -- should be able to figure it out, and pretty much at
first glance.

I can't wait to see his episode of C.O.P.S.

By the way, Al, your bad spelling really doesn't help your case.
Crazy people spell badly. It's C-L-E-A-N-S-I-N-G. You're welcome.

[President Chester A. Arthur]

Subject: Re: OT: I have TOSed Coyu on his post regarding his advocation of
"ethnic clensing"
Date: 10/2/2004 8:47 AM Central Daylight Time
What's the difference between what Carlos said about white southernors
and what SM Stirling said about Muslims? I can't see anything other
than greater repetition on Stirling's part.

Jesus, Rob, look at the people who are agreeing with you on this. Doesn't that
give you any kind of clue?


----

"Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history."
Abraham Lincoln, 1862

[Mark Whittington]

Post by Rob

Post by Mike Ralls
This is rediculous. I didn't like the post and said so, but I almost
didn't because I thought that some goober would would pick it up and
go to some nutty extreme. *sigh* Oh well. Alfred, really just drop
your bief with Carlos and MOVE ON. Really, what do you get from all
this? You'll be happier and usenet will be better off.

What's the difference between what Carlos said about white southernors
and what SM Stirling said about Muslims? I can't see anything other
than greater repetition on Stirling's part.

I always regarded Stirling's little "suggestion" aboiut Muslims as
being in the same vein as Swift's idea for fattening Irish infants for
English tables--half satire and half made for the shock effect. It is
a sad commentary on how political correctness has robbed people of
their sense of humor that Steve is being regarded in some quarters as
some kind of Hitler wannabe.

Now it is possible that Coyu offered his "proposal" for southern white
males in the same spirit. It is also possible that he hates SWMs and
wants them all dead or deported to relocation camps. A simple
explaination might clear this up. Buit that might be too much to ask.

[Stan Boleslawski]

Post by Mark Whittington
I always regarded Stirling's little "suggestion" aboiut Muslims as
being in the same vein as Swift's idea for fattening Irish infants for
English tables--half satire and half made for the shock effect. It is
a sad commentary on how political correctness has robbed people of
their sense of humor that Steve is being regarded in some quarters as
some kind of Hitler wannabe.

Let's make this into an actual WI.

WI Swift wasn't kidding? IOW, "A Modest Proposal" as "Mein Kampf".

[Callisto]

Post by alfred montestruc
Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.
http://tinyurl.com/5fcza
in which he advocates mass murder and/or asserts it better to have been done
than not, which is no different in my opinion.
I request that others also TOS him, not because it is offensive, which it
is, but because it advocated violence against a class of people with the

Al: Get A Life

[Jordan179]

Post by alfred montestruc
Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.
http://tinyurl.com/5fcza
in which he advocates mass murder and/or asserts it better to have been done
than not, which is no different in my opinion.

Hey, that's pretty funny, considering what Coyu originally got mad at
me about. I guess Coyu figures that advocating genocide (and _he_
advocated it against helpless civilians under the killer's control,
whereas I was talking about destroying cities in a country actively at
war with us) is just fine, as long as he does it.

What a hypocrite.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Jordan179]

Post by alfred montestruc
Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.
http://tinyurl.com/5fcza
in which he advocates mass murder and/or asserts it better to have been done
than not, which is no different in my opinion.

Hey, that's pretty funny, considering what Coyu originally got mad at
me about. I guess Coyu figures that advocating genocide (and _he_
advocated it against helpless civilians under the killer's control,
whereas I was talking about destroying cities in a country actively at
war with us) is just fine, as long as he does it.

What a hypocrite.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan

[Jordan179]

Post by alfred montestruc
Freedom of speech is one thing, advocation of genocide is quite another.
http://tinyurl.com/5fcza
in which he advocates mass murder and/or asserts it better to have been done
than not, which is no different in my opinion.

Hey, that's pretty funny, considering what Coyu originally got mad at
me about. I guess Coyu figures that advocating genocide (and _he_
advocated it against helpless civilians under the killer's control,
whereas I was talking about destroying cities in a country actively at
war with us) is just fine, as long as he does it.

What a hypocrite.

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan