How's that again?

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 12:55 AM 3/12/96 +0600, David K. Merriman wrote:

>I've *finally* had a chance to try and catch up on my CyP (vice CoP) reading, 
including the running tit-for-tat between Jim Bell and (most of) the rest of 
the list.

I think this is an exaggeration...  I"ve been told that this list goes to 
over a thousand addresses.  Weighted only among those who choose to post (a 
self-selected group, obviously), I do raise some heat, but it isn't clear 
that "most" or even a large minority of the list disagree with my 
conclusions.  I'm not assuming they agree, but you seem to be assuming they 
disagree.

>While Mr. Bell's Assassination Politics idea has a lot of interesting 
ramifications, I've found that his >apparent 
in-your-face-and-wha'cha-gonna-do-about-it-PUNK attitude makes reading his 
postings very tedious.

In the last few days, I'm basically ignoring AP, and am fighting a fire that 
some people around here think is just fine.  You might note that the same 
people who have been most critical of my stance on the Leahy bill are the 
same ones who vigorously opposed AP, suggesting that their motives are  
questionable and certainly a bit "predictable."  As I've mentioned before, 
and as a contrary example, I've seen (on other lists/echoes) at least two 
separate instances where people who (proudly?) claim they "always" oppose 
everything I say, say that my stance on the Leahy bill is quite accurate. 
_THOSE_ people are at least honest enough to not (always) oppose a position 
simply because "Jim Bell" supports it, or vice versa.


>Perhaps if 'we' were to simply read his postings, and respond *only* to 
those that maintain a civil tone, it would finally sink in with him that his 
Terrible Two's antics aren't appreciated.

There's is a better tactic you could take.  If somebody says something to 
me, or for that matter to the entire list, that you consider foolish and 
unsupported or elitist or  just plain wrong, rather than expect _me_ to wipe 
the floor with him, _you_ criticize in a far more tactful manner.  Frankly, 
I get tired of doing the heavy lifting for all the slackers out there who 
are seemingly content to just sit back and watch the fray.  Normally, 
there's nothing wrong with just READING, per se, but when people like you 
make statements like:

>I've *finally* had a chance to try and catch up on my CyP (vice CoP) reading, 
including the running tit-for-tat between Jim Bell and (most of) the rest of 
the list.

...there is at least the (false) implication that the dispute is between me 
and "the silent majority", a term pioneered by Richard Nixon, in case you 
either don't recall or weren't around when it happened.  You (and he) were 
falsely suggesting that anybody out there who doesn't say a thing MUST be on 
your side.

>The only other options I see are:
>        Someone gets his snailmail address and sends him a Dale Carnegie 
book, or
>        there's a mass kill-filing, with him as the guest of (dis)honor.
>
>As noted, his AP idea seems worth discussing, I'd be reluctant to lose it. 
I'd hate to see him turned into LD-2 (Son of LD? :-) because he doesn't seem 
to have learned Tact and Manners yet.

You will notice, I assume, that I have been and can be tactful to most 
people; where exceptions exist, they are typically among anonymous posters 
(such as this "Black Unicorn") who has now admitted he's an elitist legal 
snob and doesn't want anybody who hasn't spent a few years in law ("mental 
reform") school to pass judgment on the judges, no matter how outrageous 
their actions become.

Oh, yes, and I can't forget Padgett Peterson, who has raised spinelessness 
to a new art form.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com