(Read this in your best monster truck announcer voice)
Friday! Friday! Friday!
This September 4th, Two Thousand and Nine
1:00 – Keene District Court
See local liberty activist Sam Dodson defend against the mighty state of New Hampshire. This is the blowout extravaganza event of the year – you won’t wanna miss! Witnesses will be called! Ritualistic costumes will be worn! Motions will be made! Armed security will be on hand to keep O-R-D-E-R! Their court will be moved!
Act now to get your front row seat, to “have a seat” before time runs out!
(Update: Note the 1:00 start time)
On a more serious note, it so sad to see them fighting this. When you shut down all means of effective peaceful disobedience by threatening violence, it usually leads to a more violent response from the people. These are the small steps that have gotten us to this point.
I hope enough liberty activists join us in New Hampshire to say no more together. I hope more of you join me in leading the way to expand peoples minds where they can understand why government provides for a system based on ever increasing levels of violence, aggression, and intrusion into the lives of people just like you.
It’s time the cycle of violence end, and a more free, compassionate, society evolve, as people begin to see government in it’s true light; a religion and system of control taken over by people attracted to power. What’s waiting for us beyond government is an evolutionary leap for mankind, ushering in an era of true peace, prosperity, technological advancement, and abundance.
See you Friday!
After round one, I was left pondering why we're all wasting our lives sitting in a room arguing if a man did or did not hold a camera in a room and get arrested. What a sad situation. What an unproductive 3 hours. What a drain on society.
…See you all Friday.
Nick, I believe, and I think you know as well, that to ask the question is to answer it
Sam, I like your review for the court house. I'm stuck in Tampa so I can't be there for you, good luck though.
-Eddie
Nick, I completely agree. It's sad to see just how far these people will go to retain power and control over others, so their way of life may continue. I'm beginning to see the government system as morally bankrupt.
(Thanks Eddie)
I'm in Vegas, so I can't be there, but I'll be thinking about you. I hope the video for this goes up as fast as possible. I'm assuming we'll hear about it on FTL, but I love these court videos.
Good luck Sam! Stick it to them!
Given what they've done to you, Sam, I'm surprised you hadn't come to that conclusion already.
"I hope more of you join me in leading the way to expand peoples minds where they can understand why government provides for a system based on ever increasing levels of violence, aggression, and intrusion into the lives of people just like you."
Uh, probably not, since people can look around the world and see dozens of places that are rife with horrific violence because there is no functioning government. But I suppose some people might feel a perverse attraction to the notion of watching a poorly-educated, neurotic loser with delusions of grandeur advocate for the type of society in which warlords, militias and random armed gangs kill with impunity.
There is a degree of vitriol in your comment that makes your motives here obvious, Ann. Who are you trying to convince?
That's it Ann. You're catching on to what this whole movement is about, warlords and random armed gangs which kill with impunity. I'm glad your are starting to see things clearly.
Ann, those places are violent because wannabe governments are vying for control, not because the people have rejected and are willing to stand against the idea of a coercive and aggressive government in the first place. It's the difference between a major slave ship getting destroyed — which would only lead to a struggle for control by the other slave traders, and a widespread rejection of slavery as inherently immoral.
Slavers defended slavery on the same grounds you defend immoral violence — they believed it necessary, and pointed out that countries which did not practice it were mostly economically and socially primitive. Here's one example, from 1852, pro slavery author William Harper:
"The institution of domestic slavery exists over far the greater portion of the inhabited earth. Until within a very few centuries, it may be said to have existed over the whole earth —at least in all those portions of it which had made any advances towards civilization. We might safely conclude then, that it is deeply founded in the nature of man and the exigencies of human society."
Yet, slavery was not necessary, and neither is an organization with a monopoly on aggressive violence. The violent struggle by other slavers or governments to fill the power vacuum when one is destroyed, justifies the existence of neither slavery nor coercive government. We would be far better off without both.
Furthermore, I am still waiting for a response on this thread: http://freekeene.com/2009/08/14/courtroom-disobed…
I am disappointed that you have again shown yourself far more interested in childish vitriol than substantive or intelligent discussion.
John, that is the opposite of the case. Gangs who use aggressive violence should be brought to justice by the people. The economic power of the people who simply want to live peaceably and be protected is far greater than that of any wannabe "warlord". Indeed, that's why a warlord wouldn't succeed now — the government, which is supported by average folk, is far more powerful.
That economic power does not disappear if government is made non-coercive. People will still subscribe to protection agencies, which will defend them against theft, or attack by gangs. These agencies will be far more powerful than the gangs, for the same reason government is more powerful than MS-13.
The real difference is this: You make an exception for one armed gang. You would object if the Crips started extorting money from people — but when the government does it, you call it taxes, you're all for it. You'd be horrified if MS-13 started kidnapping people and sending them off to their wars — but when the government does it, you call it the draft, and support it.
In other words, the difference is this: I am opposing all gang violence, while you are supporting gang violence — as long as it's your gang.
Yeah I agree Paul…I am a good anarchocapitalist. I thought my comment was sufficently dripping with sarcasm to make that clear but perhaps not. I don't think that Ann is the best prospective libertarian…
One of these days she's gonna answer my question
25 words or less, Ann…Why do you read this site?
Ah, I clearly need more coffee, sorry about that. =D
It's revealing and unfortunate that it requires such a mountain of sarcasm to to be obviously farcical these days. I bet if I looked I could find quite a few statements around here, made in earnest, which are not so dissimilar.
Search under 'ANAMAZEDREADER'
hehe
Hey, anybody see this piece a bout a judge forcing a homeschool child to go to public school? Happened in NH:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pag…
Or that one guy, what was his name, he was on here when the MHD guys got arrested, oh yeah, Jim Davidson!
Now that guy could BE a warlord
I can't wait for there to be no government so I can become a warlord and kill without impunity, because of course, nobody else has guns that could stop me.
That was sarcasm, in case it wasn't obvious. I love how people just assume that with no government society will turn to a "mad max" scenario. I think that says more about that person. Those that believe society would crumble into chaos would themselves partake in that chaos and randomly kill.
“I hope more of you join me in leading the way to expand peoples minds where they can understand why government provides for a system based on ever increasing levels of violence, aggression, and intrusion into the lives of people just like you.”
Uh, They probably will, since people can look around the world and see dozens of places that are rife with horrific violence because of government. But I suppose some people might feel a perverse attraction to the notion of watching a poorly-educated, neurotic loser with delusions of grandeur judge advocating for the type of society in which soldiers, politicians and random armed cops kill with impunity.
Dearest Ann (AmazedReader),
Thank you for your kind word. There seem to be a few things you didn't know about me:
Well actually I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and an IQ that puts me in the top .2% of the population.
I understand where your coming from here. I'm sure many statist control freaks feel threatened by the idea of peace and prosperity. It must be very scary to to thin of a world where one group of people is no controlling others though violence.
Others have done an excellent job of explaining this one above. You could take the time to read them, but you seem fairly set in your ways. Tell you what, you keep spewing your message of hatred and intolerance that eats you up inside, and see if the world becomes a better place before your negative thoughts manifest into a physical dis-ease in your body.
Ann, or whoever you are, I truly hope you can find peace one day. Please come join us at Social Sundays sometime.
I don't understand why I've been singled out for attack by LP Viper. But, very clearly, I could not be a warlord. Barack Obama, however, is a warlord. Here is the definition from thefreedictionary.com which even members of the LP can read. "A military commander exercising civil power in a region, whether in nominal allegiance to the national government or in defiance of it."
Since Obama is the commander in chief of the armed forces and exercises civil power in the USA, he is a warlord. I think the Queen of England has titular power over the military and a role in the civil government (opening parliament, e.g.) so she would also be a warlord.
Since I do not consent to be governed and do not consent to govern anyone else, I don't see how I could possibly ever be a warlord.
When our Motorhome Diaries Friends were in trouble in Jones County, I sent them money via Western Union. It was a great difficulty for me, and not something I could afford, and I had to deal with some hardships as a result. But I did it anyway, and would do it again.
So, again, I don't understand why I'm being singled out in this way. I don't like bullies. Why don't you fuck off, LP Viper?
Ann is a complete "Internet Troll" (one who trolls message boards and chat rooms just to stir up trouble for attention..) So, why bother?
It really saddens me that we live in a country where people are content to have the police and other govt thugs bullying people, lying, coercing, and abusing people because they somehow feel a sense of comfort for it. They are happy giving up their freedom for the illusion of safety. Benjamin Franklin said that they who give up their essential liberty for a little safety deserve neither. I completely agree!
Government thuggery is all the rage on TV. Shows like Cops, Worlds Wildest Police Chases, and America's Most Wanted glorify the loss of our constitutional rights for the sake of entertainment. Is the world of "The Running Man" that far off now?
Someday, hopefully, things will change and our society will see that violence and coercion is not the way to go. But, I fear that the general public will not learn until the brink of our destruction as a society.
Just a quick addendum:
Yes, I agree with Jim. Obama IS a warlord. In fact, our whole government are warlords. Think about it.
Isn't it curious how our "leaders" all take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution…..yet violate their oaths the second they allow unconstitutional legislation like the USA PATRIOT ACT, etc. to continue in effect?
Point acknowledged. Fucking off now. BUT, I don't know if you were pissed off or what, Jim, but you were issuing forth some rather violent talk those couple days, and that shit sticks in people's brains, like it did in mine. So bedevil me all you want, but I would never have remembered your name if not for the things you posted. Not saying it's necessarily wrong or bad, but it definitely IS.
Nice Post Sam, I like how you spelled out "two thousand and nine."
The only thing we need now is someone selling Cold Beer and Peanuts in the courtroom. 🙂
Perhaps you can tell me how ideas sticking in your mind gives you any just position from which to call me a warlord. But you probably cannot.
More likely, you don't know what a warlord is. You insulted me directly and personally by supposing that I would exercise civil power. I would not. I don't want to govern people like you. I wouldn't be willing to govern people who are unlike you.
But I'd be happy to kill people who were attacking life, liberty, or property. I gather that caused you some distress, thinking about the victim fighting back. Because all you Libertarian Party people want to do is grab the reins of the state so you can force your way of doing things on other people, right? And it would be so strange to see people abandoning the state and challenging your power directly.
Why do you beg and crawl and whine and present your belly when a man in uniform tells you to do something? Because you are weak and foolish. You expect that he has a better nature that will limit how much brutality he applies to you. He doesn't. He has self interest, and if he sees it as in his self interest to kick in the heads of some hippies, he'll do it. He won't even think about it.
I continue to write about the importance of being willing to slaughter pigs. And no one comes to arrest me. Perhaps Alexander Solzhenitsyn's advice is not advice you can get arrested for. Yet.
Sure, I admire Sam for bearding the lion in his den. And I like the non-violent approach when people are willing to use it. But I don't expect it to stop the thugs. Which is why I'm armed.
I think your problem is that you think the zero aggression principle means that I cannot use defensive and retaliatory force, LP Viper. But I can. I can use whatever means I please to defend life, liberty, and property, my own, or others, when, as, and how I please. And if you want to attack me for it, if you want to turn me over to your pig friends, if you want to have me put in one of Dick Cheney's special torture prisons, give it your best shot, you lying, torturing, sniveling, worthless American.
Love you too, sweetie
And no, I can't explain my statement, it was fallacious and presumptive.
I apologize for mischaracterizing you.
Also, I ask you to think about the ways that peace can be a means to itself.
I am an American only insofar as I inhabit a geographical region that can be characterized thus.
The hatefulness evident and the end of the post above was a big part of why I remembered you, Jim.
What advantage has this gained you in talking liberty to people who have been indoctrinated by the state and simply don't get it?
I shall accept your apology on a conditional basis. My expectation is that your apology shall prove to have been insincere, and that you'll insult other people for choosing to say things as they please. We'll see.
You seem to think that I should only write what I think, feel, and choose to write if it brings me some sort of immediate advantage. You seem to think that all of my comments should only ever be directed at people indoctrinated by the state who "don't get it" whatever you conceive of "it" to be.
I write what I feel like writing, what I think, what occurs to me to write, and what pleases me. If you don't like what I write, by all means don't read it, don't comment on it, and go entertain yourself manually.
You remind me very much of the cretin who told Emma Goldman not to dance so exuberantly because she was an important member of the anarchism movement and had to restrain herself and be dignified at all times. Emma told him to go to hell. And for good reason. A revolution without dancing isn't worth having.
You remind me of the cretin on Brad Spangler's Facebook page who said that what Cassidy did walking around Keene with her top off was not advancing the cause of liberty because it would disturb too many people in the Puritanical, hateful, evil, oppressive culture of modesty taboos and endless rules against happiness. And presumably you are the sort of cretin who thinks that Sam ought to follow the rules and never challenge authority.
After all, "What advantage has this gained" Sam "in talking liberty to people who have been indoctrinated by the state and simply don’t get it?"
You are free to choose to express yourself any way you please. So am I. And I don't take your criticism lightly. I think you want to enforce rules about who can say what and when. You want to be in charge of what other people say.
You look at the violent rioting in the 1960s and 1970s that ended the Vietnam war, brought down the Nixon administration, kept LBJ from running in 1968, ended ROTC on campus in many places, ended CIA recruiting on campus in many more places, and ended the military draft, and you ask why didn't they think about "ways that peace can be a means to itself." Well, people were dying. Not just Southeast Asian people, but friends of theirs. Neighbors. Family members. Conscripts sent to Vietnam with poor training and no motivation and told to slaughter children in villages.
Guess what, goof, people are dying. Now, today. In Afghanistan and Iraq. Because you won't look at any serious tools for stopping the wars. Because people like you continue to own stocks in defense contractor companies, either directly or through their 401K and pensions.
The American Revolutionary war was a violent uprising against monarchy, against British colonial rule, against brutality, against madness. Redcoats died because they deserved it.
If you don't like it hot, get out of the kitchen.
The American Revolutionary War was about the unconstitutionality of royal taxes (no taxation without representation) and the defense of individual liberty and localized government (which I don't agree with, but is better than a centralized government).
I'm sorry that you think I'm a cretin but history always sorts these things out, Jim.
In the meanwhile you will do things your way and I mine.
Be seeing you!
I'll be there with bells on! … and maybe shackles (again)… when will they admit they are doing evil and simply stop. What do they fear? I suspect it is simply the fear of the unknown. Welcome that with open arms, I do.
So, let's take a quick, bit-by-bit look at this latest expression of obsessive passive-aggression:
@SAMIAM wrote:
"Thank you for your kind word."
Since the words I directed to you were obviously and intentionally not kind, you are either being stupid or insincere; given that your damaged ego seems to need the constant inflation your pose as a "loving, peaceful being" provides, I'm betting on the latter.
"Well actually I have a degree in Electrical Engineering and an IQ that puts me in the top .2% of the population."
Forgive me if I don't consider your testimony to be necessarily indicative of anything determinative, since degrees are 1) a dime a dozen; 2) can be achieved at all sorts of truly execrable schools (as well as good ones, of course); 3) don't in-and-of-themselves indicate competence. And of course much of what we read on this site is exaggerated and spun to serve the ideological obsessions of dreadfully insecure people; thus its fidelity to the truth is certainly open to question. Finally, your thought process, as expressed in your cliche-laden, maudlin writing, certainly doesn't betray a significant intellect.
"I understand where your coming from here. I’m sure many statist control freaks feel threatened by the idea of peace and prosperity. It must be very scary to to thin of a world where one group of people is no controlling others though violence."
Ah yes, back to the passive-aggressive, holier-than-thou affect that, sadly enough, you seem to desperately need for inner sustenance. But of course, it IS a pose, as you lapse into name-calling ("statist control freaks") when someone calls you up short. Then, once you've created your straw man-demon, you assign it a thought process from the realm of the bizarre ("threatened by the idea of peace and prosperity"; right, we really dislike peace, and we really dislike prosperity; what's next? perhaps we hate puppies, too?). But again, these cliches aren't designed to address anything real; they are totems you inflict on others as part of your desperate effort to keep your psychological house of cards intact. Try as you might to convince yourself to the contrary, in your gut you know you're spouting compensatory BS; to paraphrase Shakespeare, you really do "protest too much". Sustaining that level of self-deception must be an incredible burden.
And by the way, when you are trying to write a sentence with a contraction of the words "you" and "are", the appropriate contraction is "you're". Although perhaps a sentence such as "I understand where your coming from here" has special meaning for people with IQs "in the top .2% of the population".
"Others have done an excellent job of explaining this one above. You could take the time to read them, but you seem fairly set in your ways."
Actually, the so-called solutions and explanations offered on this site are only credible to those of you within the echo chamber you've constructed; so of course it's no surprise you'd consider these offerings to be "excellent" (once again, tribal fealty trumps intellectual rigor). As for the rest of us, our assessment is that your ideas frequently appear to be superficial, rhetorical and utterly mired in fantasy. Which is why, in spite of the hype, so few people have gravitated in your direction. If you were offering real solutions that have a demonstrable track record of success, we'd be flocking to your side. But you can't allow yourself to see that, since viewing your fellow human beings with contempt (in this case, as being inexplicably set-in-our-ways masochists) is essential to your deluded self-definition as a morally superior being.
"Tell you what, you keep spewing your message of hatred and intolerance that eats you up inside, and see if the world becomes a better place before your negative thoughts manifest into a physical dis-ease in your body."
Again, the great sage of peace intones more emesis-inducing new-age blather in the service of his knee-jerk tendency towards passive-aggression. Better yet, he takes on the role of doctor! But of course this is no surprise, because the fantasy of his moral priestliness is the gruel upon which his existence feeds. It's all rather sad. Why not simply stop harassing others based on the trumped-up grievances roiling your imagination and focus instead on being honest, first with yourself, and eventually with others? Rigid, ideological thinking has caused so much suffering in this world; why not just let it go? THAT would be a truly peaceful thing to do.
how do you bottle up that much hate Ann?
Who's bottling?
Ann said:
'Why not simply stop harassing others based on the trumped-up grievances roiling your imagination and focus instead on being honest, first with yourself, and eventually with others? Rigid, ideological thinking has caused so much suffering in this world; why not just let it go? THAT would be a truly peaceful thing to do.'
Who are you trying to convince here, Ann? Ideological thinking is the cause of suffering? How is that? Cite an example. How would bowing down to the monopolistic state and letting them run everyone's lives be 'peaceful'? Cite specific examples. Start putting your concepts where your insults are, Ann. The people here have finely tuned bullshitometers, and mine is pegged out.
Assertions are nice, but logic IS. Use it and get back to me. I can't wait to hear how a violent monopoly will make things peaceful
No doubt Amazed Reader is very impressed with herself, too bad no one else is (good thing she has a mirror).
Since she thinks she knows it all, my only question to this "mastermind" is:
What percentage of my life life should be allowed to own?
@Ann:
Why not simply stop harassing others based on the trumped-up grievances roiling your imagination and focus instead on being honest, first with yourself, and eventually with others?
You were obviously and intentionally not kind.
Rigid, ideological thinking has caused so much suffering in this world; why not just let it go? THAT would be a truly peaceful thing to do.
I was under the impression that support for gov't safety nets/socialism/statism/authoritarianism is ideological in nature.
But what would I know?
Why would one demonize the human animal as unequipped to handle it's own affairs then declare that the way to fix that is to put other humans in charge?
If humans aren't equipped to make the proper decisions, what makes other humans (in suits, hats and robes) better equipped to make those same decisions? Is it the attire that actually does the deciding?
[deleted]
No. The gangsters assign the importance to the fancy suits/dresses and enforce it at the point of a gun.
Look! A low hanging fruit! I'll grab that and ignore all the rest of the valid points and specific questions directed at me!
I'm going to assault your personal nature and levy well-researched, thesaurus-word based attacks upon the purely subjective points of a post, and ignore the valid legal and moral issues presented within.
Then I'm going to pick apart the grammar and typos that were in the post, to show that I really have all the time in the world to carefully package my half-assed responses, and accuse those too busy to spell-check a blog comment (It's not even a damned headline post) of being of inferior intelligence while I deride the measures presented that rebut that accusation.
I know a bunch of big words and some important people, who all tell me that the status quo is moral, just, efficient, fair, productive, and what everybody wants, so stop not wanting it. You losers are dumb, yet ideologically beholden. You losers are being aggressors by being passive. You losers aren't free, so stop trying to act like it.
In comment 82382 above, Ana Maze Dreader writes, "Uh, probably not, since people can look around the world and see dozens of places that are rife with horrific violence because there is no functioning government. But I suppose some people might feel a perverse attraction to the notion of watching a poorly-educated, neurotic loser with delusions of grandeur advocate for the type of society in which warlords, militias and random armed gangs kill with impunity."
Curiously, warlords are a form of government. As the dictionary definition illustrates, Obama is a warlord since he has both military power (commander in chief of the armed forces) and exercises civil power. Militias are a form of self-government. (Well-trained ones were highly regarded by the Founding Fathers, but not Ana. Anna hates the second amendment and the idea that the people might be armed.) Anywhere that anyone kills with impunity they are claiming the sovereign immunity that comes from being the government.
I find the ad hominem comments to be poorly focused. Sam isn't poorly educated, and he isn't a loser. I don't think the diagnosis of "neurotic" with "delusions" comes from a licensed professional, so I'm afraid we'll all have to report Ana Dreader for practicing medicine without a license. lol
Ana Maze Dreader, why do you dread mazes? I find your use of language to be amusing.
Your term "obsessive passive-aggression" for example, suggests that you've taken a psychology course, or maybe read a book. But how is Sam's interaction with you at all obstructionist? On the contrary, his very polite response seems both timely and appropriate. Possibly more pleasant than you deserve.
His response is not learned helplessness, procrastination, stubbornness, resentment, sullenness, nor any of the other things that characterise actual passive-aggression. Presumably you have confused his passive resistance to governmental coercion for a mental disorder that you heard about somewhere without actually bothering to understand. That's too bad.
Passive resistance and civil disobedience are useful and helpful, deliberate behaviors. They are not ever done in a partly conscious manner.
Personally, I think passive aggression is a made up disorder, like the terms slave holders used for pretending that beating the crap out of slaves was a valid form of therapy. One of my favorites is "dysaethesia aethiopica." I'm sure you can amuse yourself by finding other terms from psychology to mis-apply.
"Since the words I directed to you were obviously and intentionally not kind, you are either being stupid or insincere"
Actually, another possibility exists. Sam is behaving deliberately and returning courtesy and love for your discourtesy and hate. There's a fellow you may have heard of who was a firm believer in such behavior. His name was Jesus.
You write of Sam having a "damaged ego" which seems possible. Perhaps it was damaged by the thugs who put him in a cage without any due process or recourse on the orders of a judicial tyrant. But I think Sam has a very keen sense of self. He doesn't seem to have any difficulties with defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions.
"I’m betting on the latter."
With whom are you betting? Do you offer odds? Do you imagine yourself at a casino? You accuse Sam of delusions, and here you are making imaginary bets. lol
"Forgive me if I don’t consider your testimony to be necessarily indicative of anything determinative…".
Sam has disagreed with your character of him as poorly educated. He has provided testimony to the contrary. It is now your turn to provide evidence that Sam has not been educated. You made an assertion in the absence of evidence. Since it was your affirmative assertion that Sam is poorly educated, it is your obligation to prove that assertion. Please do so, now.
Of course, you cannot prove this assertion because it is patently false. Sam is educated, sincere, intelligent, erudite, well-read, and philosophical. And you are a poser.
"don’t in-and-of-themselves indicate competence."
But education is indicated by earning a degree. If you were a clinical psychologist, you wouldn't be able to assess his mental competence without interviewing him in person. Since you aren't, your views on his competence aren't relevant. And don't move the goal posts. You said he was poorly educated, but you failed to prove it.
Now you say he's got a degree, but it might not indicate competence. But competence isn't the criterion you sought. Sam is provably well educated.
Speaking of exaggeration, when did you want to provide some evidence of these various claims you've made? Poorly educated, neurotic, obsessive, passive-aggressive, insecure – you seem to dwell on a lot of words relating to psychological disorders. But where is your evidence of psychological disorders? Isn't that just a convenient, trivial substitution game? You don't want to deal with Sam's actual ideas or his actual arguments, so you label him crazy.
Once you apply a number of words for crazy, you no longer feel any obligation to provide evidence or support for your arguments. And, of course, if Sam is a mad man, you wouldn't be expected to respond to his ideas or arguments. But that's a cheap game. And you are a bad person for playing it.
"Finally, your thought process, as expressed in your cliche-laden, maudlin writing, certainly doesn’t betray a significant intellect."
But this attack on Sam's choice of writing style, or your perception of it (or the straw you are stuffing into his pen) isn't an actual argument. The claim that Sam isn't very smart is ad hominem, and does not address his ideas nor his arguments.
Why don't you? Are you afraid? Are Sam's arguments like the mazes you dread, Ana?
"Ah yes, back to the passive-aggressive, holier-than-thou affect that, sadly enough, you seem to desperately need for inner sustenance."
Really, you aren't using the term passive-aggressive correctly. And accusing Sam of a God complex in the same sentence that you accuse him of passive obstructionism to achieve a purpose seems bizarre. Are you sure delusions of grandeur are clinically consistent with passive aggression?
"name-calling (”statist control freaks”)"
Speaking of lapses, you've called Sam crazy by many different names and ignorant. So, let's have you stop with the name calling first, Ana. Perhaps you can apologise to Sam in a contrite and pleasant way, for calling him crazy and stupid. If you did, then I think he would be very magnanimous in his response.
"when someone calls you up short."
What does the man's height have to do with anything?
You write, "we hate puppies," which makes me think poorly of you.
"Sustaining that level of self-deception must be an incredible burden."
Here is another way of calling Sam crazy. You won't look at his ideas and you won't respond to his arguments because they are evidence of self-deception. It is a cheap and tawdry trick. Really, a whore would be ashamed of such sleazy substitution. Deal with his arguments and stop calling him names.
"
And by the way, when you are trying to write a sentence with a contraction of the words “you” and “are”, the appropriate contraction is “you’re”."
Yes, electrical engineers are notorious for being grammarians. lol
"solutions and explanations offered on this site are only credible to those of you within the echo chamber"
Another way of avoiding any response to the actual ideas and arguments. Oh, swamp thing, when will you learn to debate?
"our assessment is that your ideas frequently appear to be superficial, rhetorical and utterly mired in fantasy."
Really? Which ideas? And who are all these other people you speak for all of a sudden? Got a mouse in your pocket? Whoops, delusions of grandeur might be contagious.
Here you have labeled the ideas but you haven't identified any of them. You haven't said why they are superficial or rhetorical or mired in fantasy, let alone all of those things at once. Why make a superficial moot point? And a fantastic superficial point would be…what, exactly? Other than self-contradictory labels for ideas you haven't mentioned, don't look at, refuse to address, and cannot muster a single argument against.
It is just a brutal authoritarian state for you, isn't it, Ana? If there isn't a boot smashing a human face, forever, you won't be happy, will you? Sad. What a sad wreck of a human being.
"Which is why, in spite of the hype, so few people have gravitated in your direction."
Ah, another fallacy. The majority doesn't yet agree with Sam therefore Sam is wrong. As if science could be performed by voting. Oh, yes, a majority of scientists agree that gravity does not accelerate objects toward the center of the Earth. Or did, until they jumped out windows. lol
"If you were offering real solutions that have a demonstrable track record of success, we’d be flocking to your side."
Ignoring the track record of success of Jesus, Gandhi, Thoreau, etc. lol
"essential to your deluded self-definition as a morally superior being."
Calling Sam crazy isn't an argument. It is just another example of name calling.
"knee-jerk tendency towards passive-aggression."
Calling Sam crazy isn't an argument. It is just more name calling.
"Better yet, he takes on the role of doctor!"
Yes, that's very funny, you accusing Sam of taking on the role of a doctor after you've been misdiagnosing him with one form of madness after another. lol
"fantasy of his moral priestliness is the gruel"
Calling Sam crazy isn't an argument. It is more name calling.
"It’s all rather sad."
Very true.
"Why not simply stop harassing others"
I don't understand how anyone can accuse Sam of harassing others. Who has Sam harassed? How is obeying New Hampshire law by filming in the courthouse lobby any sort of harassment?
"trumped-up grievances roiling your imagination"
Calling Sam crazy is not an argument. It wasn't an argument in your first message, it isn't an argument this time, and it won't ever be an argument. It is simply an insult, and not a very clever one.
"and focus instead on being honest, first with yourself, and eventually with others?"
Calling Sam a liar is sort of an argument, and also libel. It would be a better argument if you had any evidence of Sam telling a lie.
It is sort of an argument in that you can discredit the argument Sam makes if he supports it with a lie, but you cannot discredit all his other arguments. And it is only a valid and worthy argument (worthy of debate) if you have evidence that he's lied. You should supply evidence.
Calling him crazy and a liar when he is provably neither of these things is libel and is actionable. Of course, Sam is unlikely to sue you for libel.
"Rigid, ideological thinking has caused so much suffering in this world"
On the contrary, sleazy, expedient thinking has caused suffering. Loving the government because it feeds you with money stolen from your neighbors causes suffering, and results from a failure of thinking.
"why not just let it go?"
Why not let what go?
"THAT would be a truly peaceful thing to do."
It seems unlikely that such a venomous, hateful, name-calling, rude, insensitive, arrogant person could give instruction on what is "truly peaceful."
I can't, Jim, I don't believe in governmental 'licensing'
I guess she'll just have to be ostracized…
Jim, leaving aside what we might think of one another, that last post above (82440) is the best absolute demolition of a troll that I have ever seen.
I await Ann's response eagerly (hint: try logic or stay home)
Oh, I don't expect anyone will sue her for libel or turn her in for pretending to practice medicine without a license. You know how passive we are, and how we don't use the government to abuse our neighbors.
Just a bit of sardonicism. Thanks for reading my stuff.
Thanks for taking the time to give Ann her weekly spanking. If you enjoyed it I'm sure she'll be back for more. Iawai's comment on the other article was good too.
We love you Ann!!!!
I would be offended if this wasn't such an obvious trolling expedition. 🙂
I'm guessing Ann has never been to engineering school…
TVMH – yes that seems clear. For example, Ana uses the "you've made a grammar error therefore you are wrong about other ideas" argument. Really quite funny.
Imagine how that would go in an EE class. "Professor, what you say about being electrocuted cannot be true because you've made a usage error in your writing. I will now prove this point by grabbing hold of the bare wires." lol
Have fun storming the castle guys.
Sam is listed as a disambiguation on Wikipedia but the article about him and prosecutions was merged with FSP.