Majority Leader Tom Delay Supports the FairTax!

Woodchuck djv at bedford.net
Fri Apr 11 15:56:39 PDT 2003


On Fri, 11 Apr 2003, kelley wrote:

> At 11:00 PM 4/10/03 -0500, Jeff Bone wrote:
>
> >Hmmm, well, was that what happened?  I must've missed that.  I just grew
> >bored with Woody's "sparkling wit."  Everybody's always got that option
> >-wrt- anybody they interact w/ online.  I'm not sure what "consensus
> >cluster" you're talking about, either, but oh well.
>
> Sure. The difference is that you choose to make a big, public deal about
> it. There's a guy on dc-stuff does public plonkings regularly. a chick
> there does the same, too. on i think it's hilarious. if you don't like what
> someone has to say, just ignore them. is there some reason that your ego
> will shatter if you just don't respond anymore? this isn't a personal slam
> on you--because i enjoy reading you, yadda yadda--but if you must know why
> i think you're caving to the consensus cluster, that's why. public
> plonkings are just beneath you!

He will not meet the Beady Gaze nor hazard the fearsome Tusks.

> by the way, m. hall tried to pin a jiggler on me the other day, using my
> first name as my last name and addressing me as mr. i don't really know why
> woodchuck did the same to you, but i personally had to laugh. john never
> worries about anyone else's gender because he's sure of it. in my case,
> though, because it was ambiguous, he pulled out "mr". why? because my name
> is ambiguous? _knowing_ that it's a name that can be ambiguous should lead
> one to be uncertain, not to such certainty that one decides to assign
> gender based on assumptions based on the way i write or think.
>
> woof!
>
> kelley

It was sort of fun.  I know plenty about Bone's thought patterns
now.  Barrera's are even clearer if more disturbed.  Tweedledee and
his slapstick sidekick, Diddles.

First he makes a lame html/mime post to which he adds a bogus URL.
This post in fact triggers SpamAssassin [untweaked parameters], so
I find it in a spam isolator.  I wrote him a pretty mild admonition,
not knowing it was a post to fork [I mistook it as a trapped dc
aolamer], and I notice he's selling a tax scam package, maybe off
a Christ For Congress website of some kind, on the basis that this
tax is "voluntary".  Well, thinks the innocent woodchuck, this young
tyke needs correction about the meaning of words, he has come unto
me for the rod of correction and the staff of guidance, how touching.

For reasons not clear, Mr Bone has a great deal of ego invested in
being "right", and I tell you, there is no finer diversion in the
post-sex years than playing one of these fish.  It's always sort
of sad when you finally bring the BassBilly down on their necks.

Mr Bone is now confronted with a situation he finds unbearably
uncomfortable: he has made a post, but has received correction on
a minor point that is so far beyond debate that even professional
sophists roll their eyes, show their open palms and back slowly out
of the agora.  But he must defend his error, or suffer -- what?
Picking another word!  The terror.  The horror of it.  Better weasel
around on it.  This woodchuck, not having posted here before [lurked
a year], must be braindead or insane.  Better defend myself, he
thinks.  What is at stake, he won't say.  Of course nothing is at
stake.

Well he offers, after round 2, to do that, to pick another word.
(This doesn't endure, sadly, he's back to "*VOLUNTARY*", double-emphasis
his.  See the advocacy site, it has "Volunteer" in large script
caps as its logo, so this voluntariness of the tax is evidently
"core".)

OK, great.  I expand the discussion [he has continued pitching the
One True Tax to me inter alia], to criticism, after a few snipes,
of the fundamental two flaws of the bill itself: it is not contingent
on repeal of the XVIth Amendment, (i.e. the income tax would come
back at the first opportunity, i.e.  at the first Democrat
House/Sen/Prez combo, by simple statute law), (Mr Turpin has pointed
this out on-list),  and the inevitability of amendment of the FairTax
itself, with a proliferation of exemptions from the tax for special
persons, classes of goods, sources of goods ("enterprise zones" or
whatever), and the general pork-scat of American politics.  In that
email, I told a lame yet mildly humorous story using the word "hir"
to describe a persyn.  (perdaughter? peroffspring? AHHH, perchild.)

Bones used that story to dodge answering the substantive questions.
Some of them he addressed in a mysterious post to the list itself
(without any quoted material from me), the one about "arguing from
authority", constituting a "pre-emptive rebuttal", in open debate
not a wise choice, but a sly move when one has stolen the opponent's
notes, so to speak.  Oh, well, it's fun, though.

Bone can't pass a Socratic Questioning in the presence of noise and
extremely mild psychological stressors.  (The "Ms" business was at
first a typo, but I grew fond of it.) He can propose a complete
overhaul of the federal revenue, but can't endure a casual probe
on the subject.  Got to learn to use that adrenalin productively!

Private email sent me on list subjects isn't private.  I will not
be drawn into off-list discussions in parallel with on-list discussions
with the same person or "combine".  These are almost always diversions,
attempt to sap strength and cause confusion.  I violated this a bit
with Bone, out of frisky eagerness.  Sorry.  I wasn't used to the
sort of underhandedness involved; I'm used to different kinds of
underhandedness.

Do people on this list appear to always send duplicate replies?  Is
that considered courteous here?

D.



More information about the FoRK mailing list