Liberty (
Tue, 26 May 1998 22:01:09 -0400


At 08:00 PM 24/05/1998 -0700, g. nelson wrote:

>First,It comes as no suprise that you fail to read 95% of the posts here
>on HPN. Your 'solutions' are so consistently out of touch with the
realities >we poor folks deal with every day I have often wondered if you
actually read
>the numerous posts to the list which totally belie your basic stance.

I do and I've LIVED it.  I just think there is more people can do to help
themselves than rant, rave, protest and commit acts of civil disobedience,
which never did anything to change a thing for anybody here, including
folks on this list.  How many people were lifted out of poverty by the
last demonstration you went to, or supported in some way?  If there was
anybody, please indicate HOW the demonstration worked, to help them.

>Second, I may be wrong (and if I am, I hope that list members other than
>yourself will correct me) but I believe you are not someone who can 
>accurately judge what is representative of or accepted by the other people

So... are YOU?  

>on this list. You are hardly the leader here and, seeing as you only read
>5% of the posts are barely a participant.

How do YOU know I only read five percent of the posts?  What documentation
do you have?  Please clue us in on this marvellous mathematical formula
that you use to find out how many posts people on this list read.  Believe
it or not, I read over 90% of what gets on this list.  I have discarded
most of it lately, given that much of it is just about protests and
demonstrations in different cities, or other forms of leftist rants about
how we have to make "the rich" (who nobody has ever defined) pay for their
sins of becoming successful in the sometimes difficult world of business.

>I, for one, have been very appreciative of the many posts which document 
>human rights abuses, the horrific results of welfare deformation, the
>pervasive NIMBY reaction and the news from Graeme and Bonnie.

And I suppose Graeme and Bonnie's efforts got homes for thousands and hiked 
the welfare rates back up, okay ... That's news to me.  If anybody believes
that, I still got some more land in Florida to sell you, real cheap ;-)

>They have been most useful in correcting the right-wing spin so pervasive 
>in the media these days.

Anything that does not advocate for unconditional and free handouts to
anybody that asks is considered right wing by many folks.  Define your 
terms, what is "right-wing" to you?  Remember: the term "right wing" means
different things to different people.  To me, it means the religious right,
which I am NOT a part of, thank you very much.

>I have a rapidly growing file of opinion on the attitudes and beliefs of the 
>conservative and religious conservative community's attitudes towards the 
>poor. Indeed, several of your posts are in this file. I always appreciate
>opportunity to add to this fascinating bit of cultural commentary and

Gee, I am honoured.  Glad to provide something useful for someone, but
please, do not file me next to the religious right - file me under "L"
for libertarian conservative ;-)  

>> I would just ask that a limit be placed on forwarding, but no limit on
>> topics of person-to-person discussion, with the exception to a rule against
>> flaming and personal attacks any list member.
>1. I am opposed to limits placed on forwarding. This is blatant censorship
>   and totally unacceptable.

Hey, and guess who talks about censorship!  Was it not YOU that wanted
me off the list several months ago, because my views were too much for
you, and perhaps others, to handle?

Besides that, how does a limit on forwarding equate with censorship?  The
same information can be provided by person-to-person discussion, rather
than simply shipping off articles from some radical socialist anarchist
list that includes people's thoughts that somehow, all their protests
and demonstrations, and other actions on their part will get rid of
poverty, house the homeless and feed the hungry.

>2. Perhaps you should examine your own behavior on this list before 
>   suggesting a 'rule' against flaming and personal attacks. I would be more
>   than happy to provide you with countless examples if you are at all
>   puzzled by my meaning. 

I have many of your flames against me on file, including blatant personal
attacks, ad hominem arguments and statements about people with conservative
views that have no foundation in reality.  Is this tit for tat time?

>Perhaps we, as a list, could then come to an agreement about what does and
>does not constitute flaming and personal attacks and you will be able to
>understand why your actions on this list generally discourage person-to-
>person discussion rather than encourage it.

I get lots of private posts in support of what I say.  Perhaps, if open
dialogue and tolerance for a diversity of viewpoints were the rule here,
as opposed to the exception, more people will post similar views to my own.

>It seems fairly clear that, at least in this country, government serves
>the needs and desires of corporate business interests pretty much
>exclusively. You miss the point. 

Now, you're down on those "corporations" again?  Now, what do you DEFINE
as a "corporation"?  How BIG does it have to become before a "little guy"
small business interest becomes a "corporation"?  When I was younger, I
ran a disk jockey outfit.  It was an incorporated business, although it
only employed one person - me.  Did that make me a corporate interest, at 
that age - after all, I was incorporated!

I run what is known in global standards as a small consulting firm, although 
I have branch offices, several staff, technology, etc.  Am I a corporate
interest?  I don't see myself as that.  I have a family, some interesting
hobbies (and if we ever became friends I can tell you about some of them),
and two cats.  I live in the 'burbs of Toronto, I love computers, write
and sing songs (have done some lip sync to help raise funds occasionally
for local charities), and I have several disabilities.  But, I don't let
my disabilities get me down, nor do I whine and pout to the government to
ask for hand-outs because of them.

Sure, the solution is to get rid of all the world's businesses, than I 
would wonder what people would do for all the folks that will lose their 
jobs as a result.  Tell me what the idealists of the list would do if my 
biz were to shut down, and folks like Gloria, one of the office staff, if
she lost her job, and her family's only income.  Four kids, a husband with 
bone cancer, sure .... Do you have a job to give her, or otherwise enough 
money to pay her so she can support her husband and family in dignity?

>    "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises
            in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral 
		   justification for selfishness." (John Kenneth Galbraith)

Dig your quotes, esp. from one of the world's leading left-liberals.  What
about the saying that liberals pride themselves on the number of people 
they have on welfare, but conservatives pride themselves on the number of
people that don't have to be on welfare ...