Saturday, August 27, 2005

Elsworthy Toohey Lives!

And he owns a blog called "No Treason"
Toohey/aka Kennedy : "Why don't you tell me what you think of me?"

<---- this space left intentionally blank.


Skating past "Ghoulish" and moving into depraved "gossip" monger territory

For all those who are watching this exchange back and forth between John T Kennedy of "No Treason" and myself and my husband...

I draw your attention to the following:

Kennedy has often advocated for privacy technologies being the means by which individuals are able to protect themselves from the predations of the state.


What I find totally mystifying and remarkable is how Kennedy speaks about valuing technology to protect people's privacy, and yet his actions demonstrate his paper-thin commitment to the concept of privacy rights or property rights for that matter. Once again, Kennedy has it ass-backwards. He talks about privacy being a means to an end... and not an end in and of itself required for human beings to live qua human beings.

See his and Lynette's complete lack of ethics in going into an instant message chat with Billy Beck, asking what Lynette admitted were "nosey" questions and then posting the transcripts. She asked a long series of very personal questions to Billy, including speculating aloud about what property *he* may inherit from his late-father, and mother.

Billy's response was "I can't believe that you asked me that".

It never even seemed to dawn on Lynette that this was an impertinent and kind of bizarre question to ask.

Kennedy's response to my questioning of his ethics on this is to proclaim that there is no essential difference between an email and and an instant messaging chat session.

When I have asked them repeatedly why they did not ask their various "nosey" questions about Billy's life out in public, they blank out the context of a private discussion having occured.

So, my suggestion for people is to be very alert on this sort of thing when dealing with these two. Do not give these jackals and "japes" (Thank you Ernest Brown, for that very apt descriptor of these two vultures) any details of your life at all. Ever. Under any circumstances. If you do, you can be certain that they will break any confidence you may have given them, for any reason that they desire. They have no compunction about doing so.

Kennedy, like a predatory shark (That according to his "game-theory" ethics, he believes himself to be) thinks he smells blood in the water, on the subject of my children.

Some of you know exactly what I am talking about here. I've asked him to post what he knows about my children.

Considering his stance as elaborated in the "Rights of Blastocytes.." threadlets that I started to post... I am just waiting to see where he wants to go with all this.

What's really amazing is while Kennedy purports to be libertarian, his behavior is exactly the kind I would have expected from a fascist right-winger... or a "morality is all subjective" left-winger. But never did I expect it to come from somebody in the libertarian camp. I also find it remarkable that during the decade that I have spent on the internet.. in the end, it wasn't the leftists or the hard-right that I would ever have to confront on this sort of thing. Maybe Kevin Michael Grace was right when he said that "Libertarianism" as being advocated by many faux-libertarians these days, is "not" a philosophy "suitable for adults". Certainly the "Game-Theory-Prudent Predator" derived variant strain of Libertarianism isn't, if Kennedy and his behavior is any indication.

Now, there are things about my life that I think don't belong in the catagory of fodder for vicious predatory gossip-mongering. And as such, I have posted very little about it. One of those incidents would be in the year after my daughter was born, I was suffering from undiagnosed and untreated post-partum depression. My response to the depression was to work 16 hours a day, and stop eating and sleeping for days at a time. I also piled on way too many responsibilities for any person to handle. I ended up in hospital in the summer of 2003 for 10 days after a collapse.

It was another two self-proclaimed "libertarians" who *outed* that particular aspect of my life. And I have noted with amazement that when cornered this is exactly the kind of thing that cretins like Kennedy resort to in their smears.

So... I'm watching and waiting for Kennedy to go off like a bomb on this subject. He and Lynette have brought it up a few times now. Notice Lynette's comment to me about how "Maybe you should integrate some contraception to stay out of the hospital".

I realized more than a few years ago, that writing anything about your life at all, was a dangerous business in todays popular culture. And the reason it is, can be neatly explained by the behavior of these No Treason creeps.

*This* behavior is exactly what one can expect from people who have no concept of honor, nor any concept of respect for the rights of other individuals.

Here.. from the transcript of their chat session with Billy pay note:

Lynette Warr3n: I'm nosey. It's my nature.

Lynette Warr3en: I gotta have the dope

It's true. To somebody like Lynette or Kennedy, the intimate details of the lives of other people are like blood to a vampire... they do "gotta have the dope". As in, they drool, slather and beg for this kind of information. It "intoxicates" them to get close to the worlds of other people. (Notice Lynette's strange fascination with Royalty and Celebrities from her days on usenet before she got really into politics.. also note that in contrast to her statement about never having used a nym on the internet, she did used to post occasionally as "Lisa Arren")

These people are "second-handers" in every possible sense of that word.

They live very small lives, with very small brains. They need some vital source like Billy Beck to sponge off of, to live vicariously thru. Like moths to a flame... parasites attached to a host. I can barely imagine the soon to be occuring gnashing of teeth and caterwauling mewling that is bound to occur when Kennedy is starved for more details of my life, or the details of my mother's death, or the intimacies of the life of somebody like Billy.

It's been over a week since this whole thing errupted... and Billy requested that they remove his material from their blog. Pay special attention to that. They still have not removed it. Instead... they are mewling and moaning and lurching around... trying to keep clutching their respectability to them, in presuming their right to hold onto his intellectual property even though he withdrew his consent.

I tend to suspect at this point that their little game with me is a distraction to keep people from noticing that they still have not honoured Beck's requests.

As Mike Schnieder said recently... "These people aren't worth your time".

Yes, I most certainly agree Mike. So... I think what would be best is to deprive them of another *victim* to engage in their sponging, second-handedness with. Perhaps it's time to pull the plug, and turn off their sustenance.

One more thought, as I start to wrap this whole thing up... In the transcripts Lynette made of her conversation with Billy, she made a very interesting couple of remarks.

Lynette Warr3n: To tell you the truth, there aren't many people that I care to interact with anymore.

What I find interesting about that is... in contrast to Billy's ability to find interesting, valuable and decent people to deal with, and my own experience of constantly making new friends and keeping the friends that I have made over the years... I guess it must be very sad for Lynette to constantly have the world closing in around her and the "No Treason" bordello she inhabits with the very small and petty anti-hero John T Kennedy III.

Friday, August 26, 2005

"No Treason" A Ghoulish Tea-Party in Cyberspace

Watching the peculiar behavior of John Kennedy trying again to get Billy Beck to notice him, by posting in a discussion that he was made aware that Beck was involved in, thanks to the Two-Four blog post on the subject.

And then I note the strange fascination that Kennedy seems to be exhibiting over the details of my biological mother's death. I think, actually at this point, Kennedy has brought up my mother's death almost as many times in the past week, than I have done in the decade that I have been on the internet.

I think there are 7-8 occasions where I wrote about my mother's *death* in a decade on the internet. Now... if there are other occasions, I can't recall. But I am sure Kennedy would be happy to provide some links to it. I do recall that there was a period of time where I was cautiously speculating about her death in the context of... if she did not kill herself... then who did?... Any murder investigation asks the 3 questions of Means, Motive and Opportunity. In the context of what was going on in my mother's life at the time, as well as in the context of what was happening in Cowichan with the Fish Weir protests in 1975, as well as in the context of the American Indian Movement people who ended up in British Columbia... particularly at least one who ended up eventually being arrested, after 2 decades, implicated in the murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash... I did for a time wonder about the strange circumstances of her death... on a couple of occasions... of the 7-8 times when I discussed her death over the years.

There are still people who to this day who believe she was killed. I am not one of them. I've seen the coroner's report first hand.

In any event... Kennedy has brought this subject up at least half a dozen times now in the past week. Odd really.. because it's *not* his mother. He has no stake in any of this.

In any event... Kennedy seems ghoulishly fascinated with this subject. He and Lynette have made a number of remarks about "corpse dragging" in reference to Cindy Sheehan. Indeed, they have accused me of being a "corpse dragger", both in talking about my grandfather, and in talking about my mother.

It's an interesting little ad-hominem. It's something like their "movementarian" smear. As Kevin Michael Grace, of the Ambler has been wont to remark, one of the problems with Libertarians like them, is that so often, their endless on-going debates about various issues are cluttered with this kind of "cipher-speak". Kennedy and Lynette have created their own little vocabulary for their particular *strain* of "libertarianism". I can understand why John T Kennedy has no faith in the concept of trying to spread rational thought. Nearly every utterance of his is sprinkled thru with some kind of bizarre new lingo that he has invented. It is utterly innaccesible to any casual reader, or impartial observer.

I am assuming that what they mean by the term "pathetic corpse dragger" is, somebody who brings the dead into their discussions on various subjects, regardless of whether it's appropriate to the discussion at hand.

Funny... because if my discussion/speculation about my mother's death is "corpse" dragging... I wonder what one is to make of the following...

Wm J Beck III: He never faced the demand for a yearly accounting of his life to the feds, to *any* proportion, much less what it's come to now.

jtk3isme: Your father did, didn't he?

Wm J Beck III: Did what?

jtk3isme: Paid taxes, including income tax. Lived in this world.

Wm J Beck III: He had five children and a wife, John. I have deliberately avoided that problem. I don't know why you cannot keep a context and insist on ridiculous comparisons like that.

jtk3isme: it's not ridiculous at all, you could have five children and a wife
jtk3isme: was he wrong to do what he did?

Wm J Beck III: That's not my call, and I will thank to you to refrain from lecturing me on what I could have done with my life. I know it all far better than you.

Why is John T Kennedy such a "Pathetic Corpse Dragger"?

And why won't he answer the question I pose to him about when it was exactly that I got a definitive amount of information about my mother's death, if he wants to continue to suggest that I have "changed stories" about her death, in the 8 years that I was involved in trying to determine what happened to her?

His latest charge is interesting too.

Oddly enough, he wants to know if I think she was an alcoholic.



I'm not interested in answering questions from John T Kennedy, the "pathetic corpse dragger" on the subject of my mother's death. (at least not until he answers my question about what knowledge he has about her death, and when I found out for certain had caused it.)

He's just a bloody ghoul.
That's all there is to it.

"The Apple Dumpling, No Treason Gang" Strikes Again

A few years ago, when John or Lynette would have said "I didn't do it" in regards to some question about their behavior, I would have been willing to give them the benefit of a doubt.

Not anymore.

Here are the facts about the "Wikipedia Vandalism" which I think should be examined, so that other people can make up their mind about what happened.

Quite some time ago Oct 2004, I made a Wikipedia entry on the subject of Somena. Since that time, a number of Wikipedians have updated, added, corrected or expanded the Somena Wikipedia Somena entry. There was no vandalism ever in the 8 months that the Somena entry was up on Wikipedia until August 20th of this year.

Here is the history of all the edits ever made to the Somena entry.

On August 20th, while various No Treasonites, were engaged in a flame war with me on No Treason, over the discussion of Billy Beck's statements, somebody, went into the Wikipedia Somena entry, and did some rather curious edits.

Curiously, while John T Kennedy and Lynette were crowing about my lack of ethics in running a process service business, and later on started to make remarks about my grandfather, and his ashes... indeed even going so far as to call me a "corpse dragger", notice the changes that this mysterious Wikipedia vandal, made:

If you run a quick DNS lookup on the IP in question, you will note the following...

Country: United States
City: Farmington, Connecticut

Now, my memory might be faulty, but I do recall that John T Kennedy has for quite some time lived in Connecticut, with Lynette. Perhaps Rob Robertson, who used to be friends with Lynette and John Kennedy, might want to help with pinning down exactly where in CT they were last known to be living.

I wonder how far Bristol is from Farmington, and if for example, an ISP in Farmington would serve the Kennedy household in Bristol. (*Update* No need. Google Maps show exactly how far it is between Farmington and Bristol.)

Now Kennedy remarks that he did not vandalize the page.

Perhaps he didn't. Maybe it was Lynette. Or maybe it was some other anarcho-capitalist No Treason audience member in CT, who while watching the on-going flamewar on August 20th, between myself and them, decided to vandalize the Wikipedia entry, with the same kinds of attacks as Lynette and Kennedy were making upon me and upon the efforts of myself and my family in Somena.


John... pull my other finger.

Now, I would direct people to the transcript that Kennedy and Warren posted over at No Treason.Near the end of the chat, one of Billy Beck's remarks to Kennedy was

"Very little would surprise me at this point, John. Very little."

That's pretty much my take on it too.

I don't really care at this point which of the No Treason Weezils vandalized the Wiki entry on Somena. It's not that important to me. I just thought that it might be *instructive* for those who are making up their minds about the ethics of all the people involved to see some of what they can expect from these people.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

John T Kennedy Wikipedia Vandal

This was quite amusing.

John T Kennedy or Lynette Warren went over to the Wikipedia entry about Somena, and vandalized the pages about Somena.

They deleted my grandfather's name from the page, and replaced it with the name of "Hank Reardon."

Now, perhaps that's a funny joke to them, but it was a lie.

Sad, that this really *is* what "Not Reason" is reduced to.

I wonder if Kennedy has asked Jimbo Wales (one of the old Objectivist usenet friends) how he feels about vandals.

Wiki is Jimbo's property afterall. But I guess, since John never understood the concept of "rights" to begin with, or why human beings have them, or why human beings, who want to live as human beings, will respect the rights of others, this kind of behavior is par for the course.

Ah well.

Back to work.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

Further Update

Since Kennedy has taken to erasing and deleting comments, as well as editing them, on his "No Treason" blog, I've let them know that my end of the conversation will take place *here*. And I'll give them exactly the same level of consideration as they have given both myself and Schneider on this sort of issue.

Funny... I've been busy at work today and moved on to other fascinations for the time being... they are still flailing away. John appears to be quoting something from Ayn Rand, and Lynette is busy talking up her "numbcunt monologues" article.

Oh... and they still haven't taken down Billy Beck's stuff of their website.

Ah well.

Such is life, when dealing with a herd of weezils.

Monday, August 22, 2005


I'll continue to document the fuzzy contradictions of the No Treasonites on the issue of Scientology, and their defence of the Quack Piazza, who is suing Dianne Hsiah, a little later.

But in the interim, I've had some more suggestions from various people who have had the *pleasure* of "debating" with the "No Treasonites" in the past, about some of the more glaring ethical lapses and principle deficiencies of this pack of weezils.

Ernest Brown, suggested I blog a few rounds from Lynette's infamous "Ship Elian Back To Cuba" comments. (A debate that I think I completely missed)

And, a fellow refugee from ACECW has started to compile the various *debates* between John T Kennedy III, and Martin McPhillips.

And another usenet veteran whom I thought had been in hiding was amused to note Lynettes claim of never having posted under a pseudonym. They suggested that if people dug around to the alt.religion.scientology thread, they could find some old posts by Lynettte under the name of "Lisa". (Granted this particular poster is a bit of a nut... so take that with a grain of salt... but then one does have to wonder about Sean O'Kaenedi's posts at ACECW... a John T Kennedy Sock Puppet that he picked up and then discared)

I confess.. I really don't have the time to spend lurking around in alt.religion.scientology archives....But I did want to ask Lynette about her membership to the Front Sight gun school, the one that is suing Dianne Hsiah for asking questions about it's association with Scientology.

And then... of course, Jim March the "Concealed Carry" activist from American Liberty, is also curious about whether Kennedy ever gave a straight answer when he made a post claiming that "No Treason" used the L.Ron Hubbard Business Management Techniques...After the American Liberty posters went to town on him for this, he later tried to claim this was a joke of sorts.

And another longtime observer of the No Treason "Apple Dumpling Gang" wanted to know about this.

And lastly, one old-timer from HPO has said they have a few thoughts to share about Kennedy's freak out over "The Blank Out Times", in the context of a discussion regarding Verner Vinge's book "True Names.

Of course, this can all just stop, as soon as they take Billy Beck's material off their website, as per his request.

Or not.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Enter The OSA SockPuppet

After long and protracted discussion took place where Lynette Warren aka Lisa Arren, and John T Kennedy were beaten into a bloody pulp regarding their defence of Scientology, it's practices and their purported association with both the Front Sight, Dr.Piazza, and the Hubbard Business Management technology....

A Strange Thing Happened....

A post by "Billy_Bek" Shows up... (Note that Billy did not write this... he was out of the country at the time, and the address used to post the message was not his account. It was a spoof)

The Spoofer, trying to pass himself off as Billy Beck, wrote the following:

Scientology is the study of *values*. "Dianetics" is just another word for the same thing, but taken to a vernacular. In strict terms, there is never any such thing as an "unclear" position or action.

Everything about human action is about Xenu, and that includes the acts of Anarchists, too.

The main issue surrounding this point is the question of *which* engrams are at work in any given case. When we hear accusations of "unethical conduct", there is an *assumption* at work, which is the assumption of a particular ethical standard which is presumably violated by the cited "conduct". Ron Hubbard had his ethics.

The fact that they were completely at odds with anything most people would call human does not at all negate what he valued, or the fact that he acted for those values. He valued aliens over everything else. That is also an ethical code, just like any other in its *formal* fit of the concept.

Scientology *is* available for "scientific" analysis, but only illegally, as an extraneous phenomena of the Internet. Human beings act on values. This is as demonstrable as our diety. Arguments over religious memes begin to approach the more-ass you see in the discussion on American_Liberty, to the point where a-musings contend for distracting inanity. This is where Rand's "quid pro quo" is crucial, which is also something that the uneducated critics of Xenuism rarely fail to misapprehend. (Friedman, et. al., notably manifest in the whole "religious predator" line of nonsense.)

Whomever wrote this had to:

Have knowledge of Billy Beck's writings
Have knowledge of Scientology doctines

As well as being an active participant long enough with either ACECW or American Liberty to know the characters in this forum, in order to post this message. That much is clear when one considers the context of what the spoofer wrote and attempted to do.

And from Hubbard Business Management Defense....The No Treasonites slip Right into OSA Mode....

From the American Liberty Archives article:

Tim Starr wrote:

"Keith Henson the engineer, Alcor founder,..."

Lynette uses OSA DA tactic

and long time Scientology obsessed wingnut

Tim Starr had written of Henson,

"& long-time libertarian activist, had to flee to Canada to escape Scientologist legal harassment, last I heard."

Lynette responds with

Actually he fled to Canada to escape the Riverside County Sheriff's Dept. after his conviction of making felony bomb threats.

Tim Starr Questions Kennedy About "Hubbard Business Management" Technology

From the American Liberty Archives article:

John T Kennedy of "No Treason" had written:

"Does No Treason use some of the business technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard, the Founder of Scientology? Yes..."

Tim Starr asks:

Oh, really? What "business technology" is that? Or is it all secret, and is it "harassment" for me to ask you about it?

Kennedy responds:

No. It's not harrassment for you to ask me about it.

Kennedy had defended his involvement with the Hubbard Business Management techniques with the following list of businesses that are purported by Scientolgists to use Hubbard's business technology

"...and so do the following companies:
Bell and Howell
Getty Oil
Pacific Stereo
Winston Tires
Del Taco
Broadway Department Stores

Starr says:

Prove it.

Kennedy had written:

"I got that information from Dr. Piazza."

Kennedy had previously written:

Does the use of Hubbard Business Managment Systems connect or affiliate these businesses and governments (or No Treason) with Scientology? Of course not.

Starr asks

"Of course not"? Why "of course" not?
If the Nazi Party offered "Jew Eradication Services," and a company availed itself of these services, would you deny that the company as connected or affiliated in any way with the Nazi Party?

Kennedy responds with:

No. No Treason is not using any Jew Eradication Services and No Treason is not connected with Scientology.

No Treason Admits It's Connection To The Dangerous and Criminal Cult Of Scientology

From the American Liberty Archives article:

I had written the following to John T Kennedy, and Lisa Arren aka Lynette Warren of "No Treason"


"It now appears that Piazza has attempted to initiate two lawsuits against people for merely questioning what the involvement of the COS is with his business so that they may distance themselves from him, and his business. This is a typical tactic of Scientologists in dealing with any criticism of their cult."

Kennedy asks:

Which two suits would those be?

I had written:

"You and John can play pattycakes nice-nice with any Scientologists that you want, and even promote Piazza and his business and you are even free to suggest that Hsiah has somehow done something wrong by merely questioning what's going on with an organization that she was involved in, and had financially contributed to."

Kennedy responds:

No Treason itself has no connection with Piazza and we are not promoting Front Sight or Scientology. Furthermore, No Treason is in no way, shape, or form connected to or affilated with ANY religion-- Catholic, Baptist, Buddhist, Scientology, Mormon, Muslim, etc. We have 15 contributors and I cannot tell you what religious backgrounds they all have as it makes no difference to No Treason. We do not ask, we do not care. Does No Treason use some of the business technology developed by L. Ron Hubbard, the Founder of Scientology? Yes, and so do the following companies:

Bell and Howell
Getty Oil
Pacific Stereo
Winston Tires
Del Taco
Broadway Department Stores

Does the use of Hubbard Business Managment Systems connect or affiliate these businesses and governments (or No Treason) with Scientology? Of course not.

John T. Kennedy

No Treason!

Saturday, August 20, 2005

"All that is required for Evil to Triumph is...." (*No Treason* Scientology Skirmish) part 3

Lynette chimes in in response to Ernest asking people with an authentic comitment to liberty to recognize what is happening in this situation.

"It appears to be a restraining order to end Diana Hsieh's public and personal harassment of Ignatius Piazza.

I'll agree that Piazza has no moral grounds to wield state power in order to silence Hsieh. However, like 99% of poeple in this country, Piazza is a statist so his use of the state to protect his business comes as no great shock or surprise.


John Kennedy also responds with

And this has what do with Front Sight?

"As a final note, let me make clear that I do not believe that Front Sight itself is involved with Scientology. Piazza has been very clear on that point throughout this brouhaha. The testimony of multiple Range Masters, Instructors, and students belies any such association. My own personal experience at Front Sight and in the Ambassador Program also supports this conclusion." - Diana Mertz Hsieh

To which Ernest answers:

It has everything to do with Piazza's -personal- tactics and my general freedom of association. Hsieh has written stupider and less well-founded things about -my- religious beliefs than Piazza's* but I'm not blubbering "Iwannasue" over it or trying to hide what I profess. This "suit" proves her point exactly.


Kennedy asks:

You know the substance of the suit? Enlighten us.

Ernest responds:

Of all the hypocritical nerve! You aren't lacking in an "opinion" about the merits of Hsieh's activity despite your professed (and apparently incurably willful) ignorance of the situation. Why don't you trundle over to and educate yourself about these kinds of lawsuits, and then get back to us?

Kennedy responds

What do you assume is the substance of the suit, and why do you assume it?

Ernest Replies:

Well, Sparky, here's a giant, economy-sized clue:

Do you have more idiotic questions to ask in your highly successful efforts to be an anti-Socrates, or am I going to have to keep busting your snotty snout with -facts- all night long?

and later also says:

"From Arthur Silber's blog:
Not surprisingly, people on various discussion threads are very upset at what they perceive to be Front Sight's high-handed, strong-arming tactics. For example, at The Firing Line, people said:

"How can you be a proponent of the second amendment, when you try to
strongarm people out of their first amendment rights?"

"I agree ... this is classic Scientology material. They use the legal system to intimidate people with the threat of a lawsuit. Unfortunately, it often works because most people prize their money above their autonomy and sovereignty. In this case, we have a business that operates within a specific subculture here in the US. I would think that FSI Would need to watch their step at this point. Coverage and publicity of the lawsuit would make FSI look like major whiny baby but losers."

"Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to point out a classic example of the 'shotgun' school of problem-solving, versus the 'rifle' school. The 'shotgun' school fires projectiles in vast numbers all over the landscape, in the hope that some of them will connect. The 'rifle' school takes careful aim at a predetermined target, and fires a precisely-directed round that will have the desired effect, without spraying lead all over the place. In the light of Scientology's long-demonstrated technique of suing everybody and anybody whom they consider a threat, and the apparent
similarity of Front Sight's response to those involved in the recent fuss, would anybody care to venture a suggestion as to which 'problem-solving school' both of these entities fall into???"

At Glock Talk, there are many similar comments:

"Due to events described by the administrator of this website, I intend to permanently boycott a particular training facility located near Las Vegas, NV, and will encourage all others that I know in the training community, to do the same."

"Nothing has been refuted, critics have been threatened, retractions have been made not to promote truth but to escape predatory lawyers. People who resort to such disgusting tactics do not deserve respect. I prefer to deal with honest people who have no fear of the truth, who do not run to shyster lawyers to threaten lawsuits in order to clamp down on free speech. If someone has something to hide, it shows."

"I think the fact that the guy is suing Diane Hseih (spelling?) one of his own 'family' members for just ASKING QUESTIONS is appaling. In case some of you don't know, the law suit is public record and the link can be found on her web-site. The owner of this board getting threatened with a law suit for members expressing opinions and having general conversation? COME ON!! If one of this guy's investors can't even question what is going on without getting sued what does that tell you? The person is so self conscious about the truth, he doesn't want anyone talking about the truth."

And, remarkably, Glock Talk itself was threatened by Front Sight:

"Hi folks. I recently received a certified letter, from Front Sight Firearms Training Institute's lawyer, concerning negative posts made on Glock Talk. In addition to wanting me to ban an individual that made allegations against them, the message threatened legal action against this site if I didn't 'Carefully check posts in the future concerning Front Site'."

Subsequently, the administrator of Glock Talk said this:

"Hi folks. I just wanted to take a moment to post a clarification of my message concerning Front Sight Firearms Training Institute. It was not my intention to capitulate, by disallowing discussion of Front Sight here. My action was intended to deny them any exposure here at all, if they thought they could strong-arm me into removing negative content, while they benefited from the positive content that was left. I don’t like bullies and have no intention of backing down. I sent a letter to them yesterday outlining my position, along with a refund check for their banner ad spot.

"Perhaps my actions yesterday weren't very well thought out, or maybe I should have made my intentions clearer, but I have no intention of bowing to such heavy-handed tactics. Front Sight and this site have had a relationship for more than two years and they have been a sponsor most of that time. For them to contact me via a lawyer, instead of calling or emailing me personally, was a supremely arrogant and singularly short-sighted act. It was also quite insulting. I do not need the money of a company that conducts business that way. Front Sight does, on the other hand, need the exposure sites like this can provide. They need the potential customer base sites like this can give them a chance to pitch to and yet they are trying their best to alienate that very audience. I don’t understand their actions."

It's clear that open and honest discussion is the target, and it's time for genuine freedom-lovers to take a stand. "

Kennedy responds with:

Open and honest discussion? Hsieh admits that this flap began with accusations against Front Sight which were "libelous in their wild speculations and claims." You know, like Glen Yeadon sayingKingsr King's in the south have separate lines for blacks? The question of whether or not libel is morally actionable is highly debatable, but an attack on libel is hardly identical to an attack on open and honest discussion.

I have no good evidence that this has gone beyond an action against libel, do you?

Ernest remarks

False analogy fallacy. A better analogy would be using the hijacking of Waco by anti-Semitic creeps as an excuse to avoid any investigation into that particular event. As it happened, the question of *Piazza's* (and not Front Sight's) involvement with COS is a seperate question from the specious charges you mention -precisely because- (as even -you- admit) there is possible evidence there, and it is a relevant public policy issue.

"All that is required for Evil to Triumph is...." (*No Treason* Scientology Skirmish) part 2

Ernie responds to Kennedy's hand-waving sniggering dismissal with:

I reiterate: I hope all individuals with an *authentic committment to freedom* can recognize this for what it is.

"Ruin Him Utterly"
Why does the Church of Scientology use such an "iron fist" approach to criticism? Consider what L. Ron Hubbard, founder of the church, taught was the proper method of handling any perceived outside threat. For example: "The DEFENSE of anything is UNTENABLE. The only way to defend anything is to ATTACK, and if you ever forget that, then you will lose every battle you are ever engaged in, whether it is in terms of personal conversation, public debate, or a court of law. NEVER BE INTERESTED IN CHARGES. DO, yourself, much MORE CHARGING, and you will win." (Emphasis in original. L. Ron Hubbard, Magazine Articles on Level 0 Checksheet, p. 54.)

"The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody is simply on the thin edge anyway...will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly" (ibid, p. 55).

"ENEMY - SP [suppressive person] Order. Fair game. May be deprived of property or injured by any means by any Scientologist without any discipline of the Scientologist. May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed" (HCOPL, 18 October 1967, Issue IV).

"This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP" (HCOPL, 21 October 1968, the supposed "Cancel" of Fair Game, which really just abolishes use of the name "fair game.")

These passages are sacred scripture to a Scientologist, as are all of Hubbard's writings on Dianetics and Scientology. So, to do other than attack a perceived enemy would be to contradict church doctrine.

"All that is required for Evil to Triumph is...." (*No Treason* Scientology Skirmish) part 1

Ernest Brown, of Saturn in Retrograde raised the alarm about the Cult of Scientology attempting to silence another critic, and made the following post to American Liberty: Nov 9, 2002

Readers of this newsgroup are referred to: This, This and Especially This.

I hope all individuals with an authentic committment to freedom can recognize this for what it is.


To which John Kennedy Responded with the following

"Here is my reaction: of what I have seen so far" which he then linked to his
Post at "No Treason"

It appears that Front Sight is suing Diana Mertz Hsieh.

Why? At this point we don't know, but the characterization of this as an attack on free speech by Scientology is getting a lot of play.

In reading Hsieh's site it seems clear that Hsieh is more than a bit of a crusader against Scientology and that she's been harassing Front Sight founder Ignatius Piazza about possible personal ties to Scientology. Quite apparently she wants him to publicly repudiate Scientology, and she tosses around thinly veiled threats of turning his customers against him.

Piazza says he's a Catholic. He says there is no connection between Scientology and Front Sight. Even Hsieh agrees on that point. I think people would be looking at this a lot differently if Hsieh were badgering Piazza to publicly repudiate Catholicism because of crimes real and imagined that the church has participated in. Can a decent person be a Catholic in good faith without sanctioning everything his church has ever done? I think so. I don't see why a Scientologist can't do the same. And we don't even know that Piazza is currently a Scientologist, though it seems clear he has been connected.

Hsieh started down this road by following up on inflammatory reports about Front Sight, reports which she now concludes were "libelous in their wild speculations and claims". I see no good evidence that Piazza or Front Sight have done anything wrong at all, for all I know the suit may be an attempt to get her remove some of that libelous material from her site; she quotes the libelous material. Front Sight's right to such relief may be highly arguable, but I wouldn't be terribly alarmed that they would argue for it if the law permits.

But this is more speculation; we don't know what the suit is about. I'll tell you this though, I don't see anything particularly noble or attractive in Hsieh's harassment of Piazza and Front Sight. (Ed. bolding and emphasis mine)

Human Beings Qua Human Beings:

This is I believe the exact moment in time that "No Treason" became "Not Reason", at least to me anyways. Sadly, few people seemed to see where it was all heading, or why *this* or *this* would be the result.

Sabotta had written:

It all comes down to the problem of evil. Why do people choose evil over good? Or, to use your terminology, why do humans choose to live below their nature? I really have no answer.

I had responded:

Here's my most recent theory - inspired by the discussions of the past 4 days here.
It's because many of them have decided not to think, a long long time ago - and there is nothing that will change their choice on that. They believe whatever cotton-candy nonesense they can stuff into their head to justify their "feelings" - and hope for the best and that nobody exposes them (if even that much self-awareness is going on).

Kennedy responded:

David Friedman has read Ayn Rand and discussed her philosophy at great length. He thinks many of her arguments are considerably less sound than you think they are.

Billy responded:

So what? There are people who've studied things like astrology and think they're considerably more sound than do people with common sense. What's the point? It's that I really don't care what David thinks, in this aspect. You're taking a second-hand approach, John. Think about it.

Kennedy asked:

Do you find it pointless to discuss things with him?

Billy said:


Look, I can't find the original post, but Klein once quoted it where he said: "But my project here is not to convince people that they should like the outcomes anarcho-capitalism would produce, but to convince them that anarcho-capitalism would produce outcomes which they, in fact, would like."

I don't know how many times I have to point this out, but that is so ethically *backwards* and upside-down that it simply appalls me when it comes from a man like Friedman. There is just no way that I can look at it without finally concluding, "He ought to know better than to say something like that, and, because he said it, there is something very seriously wrong in his way of thinking."

That's really all there is to it. And you could figure it out by asking yourself what it would mean if, in the hypothetical, A/C "would produce" national health-care and Free Cheez forever more. Now, we both know that that's not actually the case, but that's not the point. The point is that it would get the ringing endorsement of people like that "xofpi" idiot and every other commie creep on the scene. A statement like "anarcho-capitalism would produce outcomes which they, in fact, would like" is logically identical to "the end justifies the means." Now, what's wrong with *that* picture? Do I really have to explain it? (Would you dispute the comparison?)

I've seen enough of this sort of reasoning from him to last a lifetime. He's got a very lively mind, and there is just no end to the effort that he will put into evading the implications of some of his thinking. He'll simply adjust his glasses and hold up his tweezers with another "what if" departure, and the whole thing goes nowhere. Honest to god: to me, the fact that he's a libertarian is strictly incidental to my conviction that he very often belongs in the same basket with that species of "academics" who publish every kind of arcane rot to the cheers of their fellow twits, just to hear their own voices, without regard for the sensible value of what they're actually saying.

Kennedy asked:

Is he an evader believing whatever cotton-candy nonsense he can stuff into his head to justify his feelings?

Billy responded:

I'm not sure about his "feelings", but the rest of that is not far-off, to me.

Kennedy asked:

Do you think he hopes you will not expose him for what he is, or does he lacks that much self-awareness?

"Expose" him, where? To whom? He's David Friedman. He's got a broad reputation that none of here are ever going to attain, and certainly not in debate with him.

But that doesn't mean that *I* have to endorse some of his nonsense.


Editorial Note: At the time that this went down, I did not think Billy was fair to level as serious a charge as he did at David. My thinking was that any material that helped people develop libertarianism in their hierarchy of knowledge was good... and that if you give people enough time... and exposure to good thinking, even flawed positions could be corrected.

As such, I did not really see the problem with people coming at libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism from the utilitarian or pragmatic side, via David's stuff. David is an ethical, decent and caring man. I like him a lot.

But at this moment in time, I'm kinda cheezed off at him, because this most recent disgusting display by "No Treasonistas" I think can be somewhat laid at his feet. Kennedy et al. have rejected principles in order to continue being able to futz around with "Prisoner's Dilemna" and "Prudent Predatory" pragmatic, utilitarian theory.

Somebody who says "I don't understand why I shouldn't hurt other people"... is not acting as a human being, and it's an admission of very serious ethical/epistemological/metaphyiscal/political failing on a scale that is breathtaking.

When that behaviour is then coupled with unethical behavior based upon it.. they are even worse. And no.. I'm not talking specifically about Sabotta. Sabotta has always behaved in a pretty ethical fashion as far as I can tell.

Look, I know that David Friedman is an ethical and decent human being. But I am beginning to understand why Billy would like to take a big flaming dump on his doorstep, everytime he hears a No-Treasonite blabber on about "Prudent Predators" and "Prisoner's Dilemnas"

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 9

Sabotta then jumps in, to answer the questions posed way back on the following:

Regarding the subject of how to ethically deal with Human beings who do not choose to live AS human beings:

Why don't *we* tax *them*, (if we had the power to do so) build a welfare state for ourselves on *their* labor - because, after all, they aren't human beings.

Billy responded:

this. I'm not like *them*.

Sabotta said:'re not like them because you respect other's rights. Here we run into a odd situation. You say you don't respect the rights of collectivists. And yet you refrain from robbing, initiating force or defrauding them, just as you refrain from doing those things to Kennedy or myself. Are you suggesting that your reasons for doing this are different when you encounter a collectivist as opposed to when you encounter individualists? That you respect our rights because it's morally right to do so whereas you respect the rights of the local equivalent of Rick Hanson for aesthetic or some other lesser consideration? No, it only makes sense to assume that you (like any decent person) strives to act with justice towards everybody - that the identity of the other party is irrelevant. Therefore your reply that "I don't" respect the rights of collectivists really isn't the case - how can it be?

My response:

Jesus what fucking creepshow did this pop out of?

If somebody, a rational reasoned person chooses to not instigate force or fraud against other people - it is because he/she knows that to do so, is to deny his OWN nature as a human being. It is to try and FAKE reality. To know ONE thing to be true and yet to pretend that it is not. Some people will undoubtedly live their whole lives in such a fashion -but I don't.

Sabotta had asked:

It all comes down to the problem of evil. Why do people choose evil over good? Or, to use your terminology, why do humans choose to live below their nature? I really have no answer.

My response:

Here's my most recent theory - inspired by the discussions of the past 4 days here.

It's because many of them have decided not to think, a long long time ago - and there is nothing that will change their choice on that. They believe whatever cotton-candy nonesense they can stuff into their head to justify their "feelings" - and hope for the best and that nobody exposes them (if even that much self-awareness is going on).

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 9

The thread continues:

Kennedy writes to Kendrick:

That we can see is that you're overwrought and thrashing and that it's easy to to attack straw men. I think this "perilously close" tactic bids fair to deserve becoming a recognized category of straw man fallacy. "To discredit P1 simply assert that P2 is perilously close to P1 and then ridicule P2."

My response:

I don't see Kendrick as being overwrought and thrashing. He seems to be laughing his ass off at what passses for "intellectual discussion" here.

But then - he doesn't place to much value on the "folx" who he has been blasting out of the water. I do. Or - I did.

Myself - I am pretty depressed by this whole discussion. On Friday - I believed that the only second-handed type of intellect on this discussion group was strictly
ltd. to one person.

After watching the absurd display by various others I see that easily half of the regulars here have never grasped what a "right" is - nor have they integrated it into their hierarchy of knowledge.

And sadder still - they don't even know it.

My world is a lot smaller today, than it was on Friday.

I should have paid attention when *THIS* exchange took place John.
If I had Read....

Billy said:

Nothin' to it. "Just say 'no'." It's up to individuals to decide to live as human beings instead of animals.

Kennedy responded:

That is the basis upon which I live, but I don't fully understand how it is derived from self interest.

Billy said:

Synthesize the Mind/Body Split, and you'll get there.

To reasoning beings, John, "self-interest" goes far beyond the primitive demands of a fire and a chunk of meat. It's about a lot more than simply sustaining what Robert Anton Wilson called "the robot" - the body in which we carry around our minds. It's about being able to look at oneself and take pride in functioning *as* a reasoning being.

That's the root of it. Once that's grasped, the implications arenot terribly difficult to sort out.

Kennedy had written:

I know why I should value *my* liberty, why I should value *yours* or anyone else's is distinctly more problematic.

Billy responded:

Not to me, it's not. It's because I am able to abstract an identification that includes both of us in the same conceptual category, and understand that integrity is a crucial intellectual value, which means: it will not do to assert my rights while denying yours. That would be a grievous error, at best, but an outright lie most ordinarily.

This entire issue is about fidelity to precise thought. It's about never taking the easy dodge out, which is exactly what the whole "Prudent Predator" load of crap is.

Kennedy says:

And I'm not convinced that you've done anything more than intuit the answer as I have. My gut tells me you're right, but my gut also tells me you're going with your gut. In my Catholic days we called this a Leap of Faith, and I don't mean that as a criticism.

Billy said:

I understand, but you're wrong.

If there is a problem with my understanding of this, it's only how rarely I'm able to make it clear to others. However, and regarding that, it's also true that the understanding requires an active grasp of a very complex set of concepts. I have never once seen it successfully imparted to someone who was not actively attempting to put it together.


It would have saved me a lot of trouble - effort and emotion.

I would not have been labouring under the assumption that I was dealing with somebody who was as Billy wrote "actively attempting to put it together" or capable of putting it together.

You and the Bruce can chortle away like spider monkeys to yourself with the belief that you have used your intellectual abilities to defeat the ideas, painstakingly laid out to you, by myself and Kendrick or various others.

But know this. All you did was convince "me" personally that discussion with you is a waste of my time. And take that as a "no thanks" - I won't be participating
on the blog either.

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 8

And the discussion goes on....

I post directly to Kenndy:

Biology indicates that an embryo and fetus in it's mother's body require HER body for it's very survival up until the moment that it would be capable of surviving outside of the mother's body.

If you do not believe this - and still profess the "right to life" of a pre-viable embryo consider that, as the gestating host for the embryo - if I simply refuse to eat, and drink, and let my body deteriorate to the point that my life is imperilled the embryos' right to it's life - disaappears along with my own life.

Fine - if those are the terms that you would seek to enslave me to the "right" of the embryo to the use of my body. From what I understand, a hunger strike that also eliminates hydration that lasts for more than 10 days will result in basically coma and then death of my body.

Does the fetus/embryo have the right to the use of my body - without my consent? Well - try it - and see how far you get.

The pre-viable fetus/embryo's right to life is dependent upon it's mother's willingness to keep her own body functioning and alive. According to you - The fetus/embryo has a right to it's life and to the integrity of it's body - to not be attacked.

A woman who is pregnant that simply refuses to nourish herself has comitted no more ATTACK upon the fetus than a a farmer who refuses to provide his hard-labour produced crops to a starving hungry group of neighbors who can't or won't provide for themselves.

There is HUGE difference in principle between a person who attacks another person - and a person who simply refuses to assist another. If you don't understand this - then get thee to google and re-do the "EATING NANOOK" phase of Humanities.philosophy.objectivism.

The suggestion that a mother has the moral responsibility to sustain her own body ONLY to sustain the embryo inside her is tantamount to an arguement for slavery. You suggest that her body belongs to the embryo or fetus, before it belongs to her. In fact - your claim is that her body, her mind, her choice, her decisions and her actions are irrelevant in this scenario.

In fact - your arguement leaves no room for volition of the mother (WHICH IS BY THE WAY THE VERY BASIS OF RIGHTS) - and if the mother simply refuses to do anything - move, eat, drink - act, produce any value with her labour - your only option to protect the RIGHT of the fetus is to enslave the mother, tie her down - force feed her until the time that the fetus/embryo doesn't need her body
to exist.

The claim that the fetus or embryo that is incapable of sustaining itself outside of it's host/mother's body is like the claim that everybody has the right to food, shelter, medical care, job security etc... Just try to claim such a thing, when there is no victim to pay for these things and no woman will let her body be used in such a fashion. Try to claim such a thing - and reality will show you that it makes as much sense as claiming...

"That a rock is a house" - --Ayn Rand


"that sand is clothing" - --Ayn Rand


"that a penis is a car" - --Some poster on this thread who makes about as much sense as the poster claiming that a pre-viable embryo has a right to life.

OR... more specifically

That a pre-viable "embryo/fetus" - will magically have nutrients shoved into it's umbilicle cord - even if the mother does nothing but lie down and die.

And I later added

As for the "Moral Obligation" of a mother to provide for a life she has allowed to be created in her body with her genetic material.

I would put forward the position that if she continues to eat, and drink and let it sit in her body - unmolested, and does not induce labour - prior to the point of it's viability - she has already done it a favour and met whatever obligation she may have to it - for having allowed it to be created in the first place.

She doesn't have to do it - and indeed she may not even physically be capable of doing so.

So - next, is somebody going to suggest that a mother that has had 10 natural miscarriages
is somehow comitting some moral evil by allowing herself to get pregnant - since the odds that the fetus/embryo will be able to survive in her body is slim to none?

What about the EMBRYOS right to life in THAT instance? Are we to snatch the pre-viable embryos from women who's bodies are incapable of gestating to term - to SAVE them from the fact that BIOLOGY won't allow them to proceed to the point of viability outside of their
mother's womb?

And where would you put them?

What would you do with them?

WHO would you compell to provide the body for the fetus to gestate and be born of?

And what if the mother in question - who has serial miscarriages continues to reproduce
embryos: Do we sterilize her and therby keep her from endangering the RIGHTS of the
embryos? Do we Lock her up and forbid her to have contact with men? Do we pass
laws to ensure that ONLY women who are capable of gestating to terms be allowed
to get themselves pregnant?

Come on - let's see how far you REALLY want to take this idiotic position...

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 7

The Threadlet continues:

In response to the following quote by Rand:

"The purpose of an individual's life is not to serve God, the government or one's neighbor. Rather, the purpose of life is one's own happiness, which is secured through productive achievement and by engaging in voluntary, mutually-beneficial relationships with others. A necessary condition for the pursuit of happiness is the recognition and protection of the right to property: "

John responds:

Thus the purpose of a child's life is not to serve your purposes.

I answer: If it wants to live in my body - it better suit my purposes or it won't have the benefit of the use of my body

I had previously remarked:

Lets just say that while the Embryos are frozen - the mother dies. What happens to the RIGHT of embryos to be implanted, gestated and born?

John responds with:

What happens to an infant's rights if both it's parents die? The child's rights are perfectly intact, and nobody has a right to kill the child. But it is also true that nobody remains who has a responsibility to secure the child's rights and preserve it's life. Just because the child has a right to live doesn't mean that those who didn't bring the child into the have any responsility to provide for it.

My response:

If both the parents die - then the child's right to support is dependent upon whether or not anybody is WILLING to provide for it. If nobody is - then it's toast unless it can provide for itself.

Similarly if a parent is incapable of providing for it's child for reasons beyond the parents control - like brain injury - or famine or any number of naturally occuring events in this terribly hard thing called "life" - then the child is shit out of luck unless somebody else steps up to the bat.

I had said:

Reality would dictate that you implant them in the corpse
of the mother - since she has the OBLIGATION to provide for them - and see how long they last...

John says:

Would reality dictate that you put her surviving infant on her cold dead breast to nurse?

My response:

You are the one that claims that the mother has an obligation to provide for her infant children no matter what the circumstance or the choices she has made. Not me.
It's your sick little theory that would place the child at the dead mother's breast not mine.

John says:

Corpses don't have any obligations.

My response:

And a frozen blastocyte, embryo or fetus has exactly the same amount of "right to security" and to be hosted, "fed" or to be cared for, as there are people who are with their free volition - willing to provide for it.

That's nature John. And you can't blank it out - just because is doesn't make you feel all warm and fuzzy.

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 6

Having dodged my questions on "Free Riding Parents" Kennedy jumps in with both feet with Kendrick McPeters: (from the American Liberty archives: h/t Mike Scheider)

Kennedy had written previously:

That's not obvious at all. We have rights as a consequence of our nature as rational animals. That nature ends with death or brain death. But that nature begins at conception. That nature is fully present at every stage of the life cycle of a healthy human organism.

McPeters asks the question:

You're telling me that a BLASTOCYTE has the nature of a rational animal?

Kennedy responds with:

I'm saying that immature human organisms have human nature.
Kendrick asks:

With which of its handful of cells does it generate rational thought?

Kennedy responds:

An immature human organism will develop a rational faculty at a later stage of development. Wait and see.

Kendrick asks:

Exactly what *choices* can a blastocyte make with its purportedly "rational nature?"

Kennedy responds:

What choice can a sleeping man make, or a man in a coma, or a man irrational with fever?
Kendrick suggests:

Please take a look at this photo... make sure that you grok the nature of what you're calling a rational animal.
Kennedy says:

Yeah, got it. Has the same nature as you and me. Nothing else grows into something like you or me. Wonder why that is?

Kennedy had written:

The rights which are a consequence of your nature as a rational animal are not absent when rationality is temporarily absent.
Kendrick had responded:

Rationality is not "temporarily absent" from a blastocyte. It lies, at best, many many months into its hypothetical future. (The majority of blastocytes naturally miscarry -- Oh, the humanity!)
Kennedy says:

Miscarriage and the intentional abortion of a healthy child are very different things.

To which I responded:

You are seriously trying to tell me that a few cells clumped together has the same rights as a full fledged human being?

Ok - riddle me this - Say I am a wealthy woman and I decide that I want to make a whole bunch of embryos for harvest at a later time. I go down to the local sperm bank and I have my OB-GYN harvest some eggs from me and then they fertilize my eggs with that sperm.

We then put the embryos on ice for a few years while I carry on with my life and wait for the right
time to plant the embryos into me - when I can afford the time, and effort to gestate and then
deliver and raise the resulting baby.

However - I stupidly invested a lot of money into a VERY Band company. Unfotunatley - I get wiped
out financially. I am no longer able to afford the in-vitro process, nor am I able to afford the
upkeep of the frozen embryos at the IV Clinic.

Are you saying that I have a moral responsiblity to keep those embryos on ice - even if I have no
means to do so? If I tell the doctor to dispose of the embryos because I am not able to afford
the payments - then is that murder?

OR - am I morally obligated to implant ALL of the embroys and carry them to turn - and SAVE them?


You tell me?

Kennedy then comes back with:

If you have sextuplets are you morally obligated to care for all of them?

To which Kendrick chimes in with

Well, it looks like Meaghan has inadvertantly stumbled across another
reductio absurdum...

Howzabout we take a musical break?

There are Jews in the world, there are Buddists,
There are Hindus and Mormons and then
There are those that follow Mohammad, but
I've never been one of them.

I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.

You don't have to be a six footer,
You don't have to have a great brain,
You don't have to have any clothes on,
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came, because

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Let the heathen spill theirs,
On the dusty ground,
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.

Every sperm is wanted,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.

Hindu, Taoist, Morman,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.

Every sperm is useful,
Every sperm is fine,
God needs everybody's,
Mine, and mine, and mine.

Let the pagans spill theirs,
O'er mountain, hill and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is good,
Every sperm is needed,
In your neighborhood.

Every sperm is sacred,
Every sperm is great,
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.

Quite the catchy tune, dontcha agree?


PS: Thanks to Michael Palin and Terry Jones for the above lyrics.

Kennedy then responds:

It suffers from the fact that it's not on point, since I'm an atheist and sperm doesn't self-organize to resemble anything like you or me.

My response:

But an embryo in a laboratory that has been frozen to preserve it until the time that the parents are willing to try and implant them does - so why not deal with that...

OR better yet Say you and your wife are trying to get pregnant and she is not able to carry a child to term. Further - she has some terrible disease that has meant that they had to harvest her eggs
before performing a hysterectomy. So - you and she have the eggs fertilized with your sperm - and put them on ice until you can find somebody to be a surrogate or womb for rent.

Unfortunatley you can't find anybody willing to do the job.

Does the Embryo have the RIGHT to be gestated?


Kennedy responds finally here:

Like an infant it has a right to live, which means nobody has a right to kill it. The folks who brought the child into the world have moral responsibilities to it.

My response:

Wow - you heard it here first. The editor of the AnCap "No Treason" Webzine and professed freedom loving, John T. Kennedy has voiced his support for the enslavement of women and their bodies to provide for the rights of Embryos - even those that don't even exist in their biological mother's bodies.

"The purpose of an individual's life is not to serve God, the government or one's neighbor. Rather, the purpose of life is one's own happiness, which is secured through productive achievement and by engaging in voluntary, mutually-beneficial relationships with
others. A necessary condition for the pursuit of happiness is the recognition and protection of the right to property: "

Go back to Ayn Rand for a primer...

"The right to life is the source of all rights--and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave."

Lets just say that while the Embryos are frozen - the mother dies. What happens to the RIGHT of embryos to be implanted, gestated and born?

Reality would dictate that you implant them in the corpse of the mother - since she has the OBLIGATION to provide for them - and see how long they last...

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 5

From the American Liberty Archives h/t Mike Schneider

I had written:

I don't see how you can claim that a man who did NOT seek to become a father - is free-riding off his kid.

Kennedy responded with:

He is if the kid pays for the ride.

My response to Kennedy:

At what point is the kid "paying" for the ride?
As far as I can tell - the nature of children is such that they do not pay for much of anything - in the sense that the bills and costs associated with child-rearing are generally only paid by the parents raising them - until such a time
as the child is capable of providing for him/herself at which point - they are only doing what every
rational human being should do as a functioning human being - ie - provide for themselves and
not be a burden to others.

I had written:

Especially if he does not seek to excercise parental rights and does not want the warm-and-fuzzies associated with being a daddy and instead, is cut out of the equation all-together by a vindictive girlfriend/spouse/one-night stander, or if he cuts himself out of the equation?

Kennedy says:

If he is prevented from supporting the child, that of cours is not his fault, but otherwise he's free riding on his child if the child pays.

I ask Kennedy:

What is the child paying exactly and to who?

Kennedy had suggested

Just as the woman who aborts the child or abandons it is free riding on it.

My response:

That is absolutley the most strange arguement I have seen. I believe you must mean something quite different from "free-riding" - than what you are attempt to show as it's meaning in this discussion. Perhaps its just a vocab issue.

Kennedy says:

in these cases the child gets to pay for choices it was not party to and could not defend itself form (sic)

I ask this question


If anything the 'free-rider' in this equation is the offspring from it's embroyonic start - to the college tuition finish, should it carry on that far.

What does the fetus contribute to it's mother?
Or father for that matter?

Back to my original post. I had stated:

"What VALUE is he getting out of the experience of the kid being in this world that he is directly benefiting from in this instance?"

Kennedy asserts:

The value he recieved was sexual pleasure. If the kid pays for it,
that's a reprehensible form a free riding.

At the moment that sexual pleasure was had - the embryo didnt even exist. I don't understand your rationale on any of this. I'm sorry.


I also thought to add a little later on...

What of the man who impregnates a woman and then a few days later dies in a horrible flaming bus crash?

Is the Dead man still "free-riding" from the grave on Jr?

(Editorial: Oddly (or not, depending on how you look at it.. John T Kennedy, Fearless Logician and Dedicated Defender of Liberty and advocate of reason, owner/editor of "No Treason", never bothered to answer these questions... he did find time to respond to other posts from other people... but he never did get around to dealing with these questions)