Not Reason - Mirror for the No-Treason Website

Are These People Clams ? (Cult of Scientology?)

2006-11-04T11:32:00.000-08:00

You Be the Judge: Why is No Treasons' Archives Littered with Attacks on various Libertarians from all over the United States, when at the same time, they consistently have defended one thing over the years? - Scientology. Here's some of the anti-dote to their attempts to make Scientology acceptable among libertarins:

"Confusion Techniques" and "Persecution Techniques"

Visit LermaNet.com for more information!

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18168
John Kennedy Admits "NO Treason's Involvement with LRH Business Management Tech:

Warren makes a joke about the death of a member and punishment done to her by the cult
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18088

More of Warrens justification of SeaOrg Punishment
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18092

Warrren gets uppity about "intellectual property rights" of the COS
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18177

Warren claims there are "Satisfied OT customers"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18121

Kennedy states "COS is not a problem that needs solving"
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18127

Warren trys to discourage the boycott of Front Sight A Scientology Front Gun School
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18079

Warren again attacks the victims of scientology
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18082

Warren knows a great deal about the faked up case against Henson
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18221

She goes on to quote the following... (wonder where she got it)...about faked up case against
Scientology Critic...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18224

Kennedy rejects the notion that Scientology uses brainwashing....
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18184

Kennedy's first attack on the boycott of the COS Frontsight Gun School
http://www.no-treason.com/weblog/2002_11_03_archives.html#85657685

Schnieder posts that he thinks its a shame that COS buildings are not blazing in flames... Kennedy gets a little defensive about this
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18063

Kennedy keeps making the claim that Piazza has nothing to do with Front Sight
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18044

Warren says she has no sympathy for anybody who tangles with the cult
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18071

Tim Starr Bitchslaps Warren about her comments re the Cult.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18197

Tim Starr Bitchslapps them again about more of their defence of the Cult
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18199

Kennedy defends the Quack Piazza COS jerks actions against Hsieh
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18200

Kennedy goes after Dean Gambaurd
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18211

Kennedy details MORE on Gambaurd... (How does he know so much?)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18216

Tim Starr confronts Kennedy on his statement about his involvement with LRH Business Management Tech
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/message/18217

As for Front Sight - the Scientology Front Gun School In Question -- Whatever happened to them?

The Front Sight School that John T Kennedy and Lynnette Warren of the No-Treason blog so vigorously tried to defend while attacking the Hsiehs, has been now sued by numerous clients.

It is indeed a Scientology front - despite multiple claims to the contrary by Kennedy and Warren.

I wonder why they were so eager to cover up the link between FRONT SIGHT and SCIENTOLOGY?

From the website in question...

"The purpose of this website is to provide information and developments regarding a class action lawsuit filed against Ignatius Piazza and Front Sight Firearms Training Institute on behalf of members alleging fraud, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The suit claims that Defendants Ignatius Piazza and Front Sight Management Incorporated, doing business as Front Sight Firearms Training Institute, marketed and sold "First Family Memberships" by means of false and misleading statements. The suit further alleges that Defendant Piazza illegally diverted money obtained from plaintiffs and members of the class, as well as money from a $6,000,000 bank loan using Front Sight property as security, for his personal use and self aggrandizement, thus causing harm to First Family Members. The Complaint seeks to enjoin Defendant Piazza from continuing to market and advertise Front Sight Memberships in ways that violate State and Federal laws, and to recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution and/or disgorgement of the defendants’ ill-gotten gains."

From an article about Front Sight... and Dr.Piazza...

DeMeo's not playing you're my favorite 'special' deputy game
SHERIFF: PREVIOUS TOP COP PUT COUNTY IN JEOPARDY; LIESEKE SAYS IT'S ALL 'SILLINESS'

By GINA B. GOOD
PVT

Twice a year, Nye County Sheriff's deputies must pass a proficiency test using the weapons they carry on the streets. With Front Sight Firearms Training Institute just 30 minutes south of Pahrump, why has the Sheriff's Office stopped qualifying its deputies there?

While Wade Lieseke was sheriff, Front Sight did not charge the county to use the facility, and the former sheriff "found it advantageous to the county" to train there. Yet today, neither the county's deputies nor its Special Tactics And Response Team (START) train at Front Sight ranges.

Nye County Sheriff Tony DeMeo explained that soon after taking office, he met with Front Sight's founder, Ignatius Piazza. At that meeting, the sheriff found that if the county wanted to continue qualifying and training deputies at Front Sight, DeMeo had to give Piazza "special consideration."

Instead the newly-elected sheriff did just the opposite. DeMeo took away what Piazza wanted most - his special deputy status.

"There was a quid pro quo relationship between Front Sight and the previous sheriff," DeMeo stated. "People knew about it. I don't know what the arrangement was, but I refused to continue it."

"That's absurd," said former sheriff Wade Lieseke.

"The move away from using Front Sight's range was purely political," Lieseke continued. "Piazza contributed $8,000 to my campaign (in 2002, when the incumbent lost to DeMeo) and that was a mortal sin."

Lieseke spent 12 years as Nye County's sheriff before losing the election to Tony DeMeo for the term starting in January 2003. "We had our own range at no cost and we did our own training," said the former sheriff.

Lieseke, who is strongly rumored to be running for sheriff this year but so far has not announced his intentions, denies special considerations were given to Front Sight's owner. But there is no question that the special deputy badges granted by Lieseke to Piazza and his management staff - then taken away by Sheriff DeMeo - created a bone of contention that Piazza found hard to swallow.

Front Sight's founder was also given notarized letters, written on Nye County letterhead and signed by then-sheriff Lieseke. The Pahrump Valley Times obtained a copy of a letter renewing Piazza's status, dated Sept. 16, 2002. It reads: "To Whom it may concern: Due to his duties and exposure as a Special Deputy, Ignatius A. Piazza is required to be armed 24 hours per day. This includes maintaining his firearm, concealed on his person when flying commercial airlines. Special Deputy Ignatius Piazza has received an extensive amount of specialized and advanced firearms training."

Piazza was among a handful of Front Sight personnel that were issued the badges, but he was the only person enabled to carry a firearm while flying.

The letter was used by Piazza to fly from San Jose, Calif., into McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas multiple times each month, allowing him to oversee the ongoing construction at Front Sight facilities as well as to lecture, promote and sell Front Sight membership programs.

Piazza is a California resident who lives and works from his upscale home in Santa Cruz County where permits to carry firearms are next to impossible to come by for civilians. To be "required" to carry a weapon 24-hours per day is extremely uncommon for a civilian or law enforcement professional.

According to Sheriff DeMeo, "No one in the Nye County Sheriff's Office is mandated to carry a firearm 24/7."

The PVT also acquired a copy of the Sept. 7, 2002 letter from Ignatius Piazza requesting then-sheriff Lieseke to renew his notarized letter. It said, in part, "I greatly appreciate your assistance in providing for my safety. I have been flying regularly all year (at least four times per month) without question or incident. Please let me know how I can assist you."

"Piazza demanded that I reissue the letter," said Sheriff DeMeo. "I said no. He may not have known it was illegal before then, but from that point on he knew it was illegal (to have and use the special deputy badge and to fly with a firearm).

"I told him it was illegal and for him to pursue that was troubling to me," said DeMeo.

The letter issued by Lieseke was correct in saying Piazza has extensive training. He is one of just two men in the country to earn a four weapon combat master designation - using a handgun, rifle, shotgun and submachine gun. However, according to DeMeo, Piazza has never attended a day of special training to carry a firearm on an airplane.

"Flying while armed is a police use-of-force class," said DeMeo. "It is only available to law enforcement personnel who must carry a firearm."

Piazza also told his instructors he showed his special deputy badge to bypass airport security checks.

"There are standards for deputies," said DeMeo. "Our deputies are state certified that they meet certain standards. For a department to give a badge to someone and give that person the same authority as a fully trained officer is irresponsible at the least. Lieseke during his 12-year term bestowed the status on several non-trained civilians.

"We definitely don't have the money to defend our agency should any (so-called) special deputies be involved in a shooting incident," said DeMeo. "The previous sheriff put the county in jeopardy."

During introductions at the beginning of each new teaching session at Front Sight, instructors with special deputy badges were encouraged to introduce themselves as Nye County deputies, although not all complied. The practice was started when Front Sight first opened and Piazza was still teaching. He walked from range to range introducing his instructors, reportedly citing sometimes-embellished accomplishments.

Piazza also exploited the fact that Nye County officers - and especially the prestigious START teams - were training at Front Sight. "He was telling people Front Sight was training our county officers. Piazza was using the county as part of his marketing," said DeMeo.

"I felt for the integrity of the sheriff's office that I had to separate the Nye County Sheriff's Office from Front Sight," continued DeMeo. "The sheriff's office has not been compromised by Front Sight.

"That (relationship with the previous sheriff) is why people feel inhibited to talk about Front Sight," said DeMeo, responding to a comment that local contractors and former Front Sight employees from Pahrump had brought information to the Pahrump Valley Times, but would not allow their names to be published.

"People need to know that this agency has no relationship with Front Sight," DeMeo emphasized.

According to Lieseke the flap over special deputy badges is "silliness." He said many rural counties grant badges to citizens to augment their police force.

"The law has changed and now special deputies must be academy certified," said Lieseke. "They must be a Category I or III officer.

"That killed our reserve officer program," he continued. "We used to have two-man cars using our reserves, but the law simply changed.

"We deputized (Front Sight instructors) because they were out there alone at some distance from town," Lieseke explained. "A lot of them were ex-police officers and could handle themselves.

"They had commission cards because they were commissioned as special deputies," he continued. "They were sworn deputies, but reserves can't do that any longer. Crime is up and the statistics show it. The change hurts the rural areas."

****************
First Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and California Consumer Protection Laws.
Go take a look at the litigation documents here.

**********

Beck's Final Say On The Subject

2006-01-10T08:13:00.000-08:00

Who and what am I on this issue? Well - I guess, since Billy has made it clear that he wants his materials (ALL OF IT) off of No Treason, and Kennedy is such a dishonest parasite, looter scum, that he won't abide by the request... I am the *fee* that Kennedy gets to pay for using Billy's work without his permission.

Every few months, just when John Kennedy thinks he's gotten away with having people forgotten what a lowlife scumbag he is, I will pop up and remind people of Beck's final word on the matter. Here.

Lopez's suggestion

2006-01-08T20:27:00.000-08:00

Is recently that I compile the evidence against Kennedy or Kate.

I have done so - re Scientolgy and Kennedy here - and Kate on SDA 2.0 - ( guess Lopez has not bothered to examine the archives of either place)

As for the issue of Billy Beck and whether he wants his material OFF of No Treason.

It's a simple matter Lopez.

Have you bothered to ASK Billy?

Or are you just taking John T Kennedy's word for it?

I know what the answer to that is...

but it would be funny to the on-lookers of this little spat to hear you say the words out-loud.

*Update* Ernest Brown suggests the following instead which cuts to the bone, on why it is that Billy himself has *nothing to say* on the subject himself.

" bg class="oa">Billy Beck

Dec 27 2005, 4:52 pm show options

Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, alt.politics.bush, alt.society.liberalism, talk.politics.misc

From: Billy Beck ...@htva.net> - Find messages by this author

Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:52:11 GMT

Local: Tues, Dec 27 2005 4:52 pm

Subject: Re: Bookmark - Beck: Black Church Burnings (was Re: Joy)

" Kurt Lochner" ...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:

>Billy Beck wrote:
>>Kennedy documented the whole episode here --

>Fuck him..

That's exactly what I've had to say about him [KENNEDY] for months, now.

Because John T Kennedy Is An Ignorant Idiot

2006-01-08T01:36:00.000-08:00

Here is an article for him to read:

Maybe someday he will learn something, and stop acting like such a scientologist dumbass.

Indian Kinship: Relevant Portion

Among the Salish tribes of British Columbia, who appear to have had a special fondness for recording genealogies, the number of terms of relationship is very greatly increased. Thus four or even five generations back of that of the parents and below that of the children are marked by distinct terms, and there are distinguishing terms for the first, second, third, and youngest child, and for the uncle, aunt, etc., according as one's father, mother, or other relative through whom the relationship exists is living or dead, and different terms for a living and a dead wife. There are thus 25 terms of relationship among the Lillooet, 28 among the Shuswap, and 31 among the Squawmish. By way of illustration, the kinship system of the last-mentioned tribe is subjoined (see Boas in Rep. on N. W. Tribes of Can., 136, 1890):
1. Direct relationship. Haakweyuk, great-great-great grandparent or great

great-great grandchild; tsopeyuk, great-great-grandparent or great-great-grandchild; stshamik, great-grandparent or great-grandchild; seel, grandfather, grandmother, great-uncle, or great-aunt; emats, grandchild, grandnephew, or grandniece; man, father; chisha, mother; men, child; seentl, eldest child; anontatsh, second child; menchechit, third child; saut, youngest child; kupkuopits, brothers, sisters, and cousins together; kuopits, elder brother or sister, or father's or mother's elder brother's or sister's child; skak, younger brother or sister, or father's or mother's younger brother's or sister's child snchoitl, cousin.

2. Indirect relationship.

(A) When the intermediate relative is alive: sisi, father's or mother's brother or sister; staeatl, brother's or sister's child; chemash, wife's or husband's cousin, brother, or sister; or cousin's brother's or sister's wife or husband; saak, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, or mother-in-law; skuewas, any relative of a I)usharnl or wife.
(B) When the intermediate relative is dead: uotsaeqoitl, father's or mother's brother or sister; suinemaitl, brother's or sister's child; chaiae, wife's or husband's cousin, brother, or sister, or cousin's brother's or sister's wife or husband; slikoaitl, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, father-in-law, or mother-in-law.
3. Indirect affinity Skseel, wife's grandfather or grandmother, or stepfather's, stepmother's father or mother; skaman, aunt's husband or stepfather; skechisha, uncle's wife or stepmother; skemen, stepchild; skemats, grandson's or granddaughter's wife or husband; skesaak, wife's or husband's stepfather or stepmother, or stepchild's husband or wife.

It will be noted that many of these are reciprocal terms, and such were very common in Indian kinship systems, used between persons of different generations, as above, or sometimes between persons of opposite, sex of the same generation, such as husband and wife. Out of 14 terms in Klamath and Modoc 11 are reciprocal. On the other hand, persons of different sexes will often indicate the same relative, such as a father or a mother, by entirely different terms, and different terms are applied to those of a person's own phratry and to members of the opposite one, while the Iroquois use, the equivalent for 'brother' for persons inside and outside the tribe indiscriminately. In all tribes, no matter how organized, a distinction is made between the elder and the younger members of the generation of self, at least between older and younger members of the same sex.

The terms corresponding to 'grandfather' and `grandmother,' except among a few peoples, like the Salish, were extended to all those of a generation older than that of the parents and sometimes even to persons of that generation, while the term for 'grandchild' was applied to very young people by old ones quite indiscriminately. There were also terms to indicate the potential relationship of husband and wife, applied by a man to his wife's sisters, his aunt, or his niece, not because she was or had been, but because she might become, his wife, as usually happens to the wife's sister after the wife's death.

But then... I don't need to read about this crap on the internet...
I live it.

Lynette Warren Revealed

2006-01-06T12:36:00.000-08:00

I have it on good authority - from her ex-husband, that this is what Lynette Warren of "No Treason" Looks like... or at least she did, before she snuck out of her house in the middle of the night and moved off to join the Dalton Gang - aka John T Kennedy and his "No Treason Bordello"

Wow.

Now that's some kind of ugly.

John T Kennedy of No Treason Steals

2006-01-06T10:13:00.000-08:00

And Continues to Steal

And if you don't believe this

Just ask Billy Beck who asked many months ago for John to remove ALL his material from No Treason, and which John T Kennedy has refused to do.

You don't need to take my word for it.

Just ask Beck himself.

I do not speak for the man.

I don't need to.

He has no interest in "reasoning" with a looter, a jackal and a parasite - like Kennedy, but if he is convinced you are an honest person, and can benefit by his experience in his dealings with Kennedy, he might be inclined to tell you what happened, and why it is that Kennedy is such a creep and why he see's fit to never deal with the man again.

And that's the real reason that I am a regular running source of amusement and scorn at the NotReason Circle-Jerk of Prudent Predators... because I am willing to regularly bring up the fact that they are a bunch of parasites.

Ah well.

Such is life in a land of malignant eloi.

John T Kennedy As The Eleanor Rigby Of BlogWord....

2006-01-05T18:03:00.000-08:00

Are you like obsessed with me?

Click on the link.

Gee John. How did you end up at the Progressive Bloggers of Canada web diaries?
Did your charming friend KKKate McMillan send you?

Or were you stalking me?

Curious isn't it?

Do you run around the internet looking for my vague refferences to things you may have said to me in the past, and then feel a compulsion to rebut it?

Did your parents not pay enough attention to you when you were a child, and this is how you compensate by it now? By running around the internet picking fights with people?

Wow.

How very very sad for you.

Psychotherapy is not cheap John, but it would perhaps be a little less embarrasing than this vulgar display of your psychopathology.

So.... uh....When are you going to take Billy Beck's Material Off his Website, as per his request.

Now look, people, if there is anybody out there who doesn't believe that Billy requested/demanded of John T Kennedy, why don't you send Billy a little email note and ask him. That ought to clarify matters.

You will note, in going back to the Chronology of Events that it was only after that I pointed out what a second-hand loser, looter, parasite and thief that Kennedy was acting like by stealing Billy's stuff (ie using it without his permission) that the attacks against me began in earnest... especially helped along by his brighty shinny new friend KKKate

Cause guess what, John T Kennedy. Running around the internet attack me, hoping to provoke a response from Billy is simply not going to work.

Billy Beck still hates your gates. He still considers you to be be dead to him. And he still wants you to take down all your stuff off his site.

And what I find hilarious is this...

Aren't 3 of these "authors" no longer participating in your little weblog Kennedy? Which makes your little blogroll there, a "lie"?

And....

Any good psychiatrist will tell you that talking to yourself... or talking to people who refuse to answer you, is a sign of mental instablity. Do you do this in other places Kennedy, or just in blogworld?

Keep on Blogging Kennedy.
I love watching you make such an ass of yourself.

"John T Kennedy" The Looter and Parasite!

2005-11-14T10:54:00.000-08:00

Was just on AIM with Mike Schnieder last night and he told me that he had demanded that his stuff be taken off of Kennedy's No Treason blog months ago. And Kennedy has once again refused to comply with the request.

Way back when John T Kennedy of the Not Reason blog was just kicking No Treason into existence, trying to get people to add to his masthead... he asked a number of people, myself included, to let him have some of our content.

A few months ago, Billy Beck asked that his materials be removed from the No Treason blog. Kennedy proceeded to play silly buggar, and made up, out of whole cloth some bullshit about how at one point Billy had agreed to let the material stay on his blog for as long as the blog existed. Billy has no recollection of such an agreement taking place. And he frankly could care less to argue the point. His stance is... "Well.. if that's how little honor the guy has, he's not worth any thought, effort or emotion". And so it's been.

Any mention of Kennedy or "No Treason", when I talk with Billy, is met with the equivelent of a "cold stare" and a contemptous metaphysical spit, in their direction.

I guess that's the cruelest twist of all for John T Kennedy.
That somebody like Billy, whose articles he so admires that he needs to basically engage in thievery at this point to keep them, could give a runny poop about him, or his stupid blog.

I suspect, that at this point in time, if news was to break in blog-circles that Kennedy and the entire crew of No Treason, were to have perhaps died in some horrible flaming car-accident... I am guessing that the response to this news from Billy would be something along the lines of...
"Oh gee. How terrible. Hey, Anybody want coffee?"

Anyways.. back to the issue at hand.
Neither I, nor Mike Schenider nor Rob Robertson made ANY such agreement with Kennedy with respect to Material we provided for the No Treason Blog.

Schneider and I are pretty much convinced that Kennedy is simply flat out telling a lie, when he claims that such an agreement was reached with Beck.

I don't know if Bill Kasper aka Dick Freely was asked to make this sort of agreement or not. Maybe he will chime in at some point...

Now, thinking back on the timeline involved..I particularly recall the event about being asked to contribute my column to No Treason, because the column which I did allow Kennedy to put up on "No Treason", was one which had been previously printed in the National Post, and for which they had paid me money. I had to seek permission from the National Post to get that column available for the No Treason blog. At no time did Kennedy ask for the right to hold my column on his blog in perpetuity.

Kennedy also made no such demand or agreement with Mike Schenider, former owner of the American Liberty Yahoo Group with respect to his essay on "Keys"

Mike Schnieder demanded months ago, shortly after Billy did, that Kennedy remove his material from the No Treason blog. Kennedy still has not done so... but came up with a rather weird little twist to justify his theft of intellectual property rights. He posted a message telling people that by reading this message, and by commenting on the message, it was giving consent that their material was now and forevermore the property of No Treason.

Of course Mike Schneider never agreed to such a thing, either back in 2000, nor did he go along with this little retroactive bullshit that Kennedy was trying to pull.

When I demanded that Kennedy remove my material from his blog in 2002, he did so. He made no mention of this faked up little agreeement that he claims he had with No Treason contributor Billy Beck, which he pulled out his ass a few months back, when Billy asked for his stuff to be removed.

So I was lucky.
However...to this day, despite their objections... both of Billy's articles and Schenider's article is still up on the No Treason website.

Ergo, John T Kennedy is a second-handed looter.. who has stolen the value of Mike Schnieder's efforts as well as Billy Beck, and he will not abide by their demand that the material be stripped from his website.

Kennedy came by here last week or so saying "You are too stupid for tears".

I just wanted to point out to Kennedy, and any casual readers here... that he is , as I responded at the time "Too dishonest for words".

So well done Kennedy! Keep your plunder that you stole from Billy Beck and Mike Schneider! And try like a blithering fool to pretend that you aren't really stealing.

Maybe.. if Kennedy wishes for it really really hard, he will someday be able to convince himself that his looting of Mike and Billy's stuff is just fine. It might even be done in his shrivelled brain, with some sort of fancy creation of some sort of variation on his prudent predator crap.

After-all.. he *can* and *is* getting away with stealing people's stuff... so maybe, he hasn't violated their rights at all... I guess is how the mind-game he plays with himself will go.

Seriously.. though, I have to ask myself..
Doesn't the man have even a modicum of self-respect?
Guess Not.

2 Months, And he is still providing evidence with each passing day that he is nothing but a parasite looter.

Here's an analogy that seems to fit as far as I am concerned. Let's say for example:

A few years ago, a guy (John T Kennedy) moves into the local neighborhood, and he buys a house. He asks various people in the neighborhood to borrow some of their power-tools... like a lawnmower, hedgetrimmers, or a power-pressure washer etc.... He does not offer to pay for the use of these things, or even rent the damn things. He just asks for the use of them.

Being neighborly... and liking the fact that by this guy fixing up his yard, which will improve property values in the entire neighborhood, these kindly neighbors, like Billy, Mike, Myself and Robertson, all agree to loan Kennedy the use of our property. Again.. this is important, no money changes hand. No value is recieved by the owners of these tools.

A few years later... when he has a falling out with one of his neighbors (me), I demand that he stop using my lawn-tool (An essay I had written for National Publication), and I demand that he remove it from his site, give me back my possession of the property. He does so, without a problem.

A few more years later.. he (Kennedy) has another falling out, and this time, when the kindly neighbor who had loaned the guy the use of several power-tools, and a lawnmower... demands that he stop using these tools and return them to his possession... this Kennedy crank says "But you said when we moved in, that I could use these tools, so long as I lived here, and I felt like I needed them to tend to my yard" Of course, the neighbor (Beck) has absolutley no recollection of such an "agreement" being made.

A few weeks after this, yet another neighbor has a falling out over all this... and again asks for his stuff to be returned to his possesion. (Mike Schneider) Kennedy refuses... but he doesn't dare bring up this issue of whether or not he got Mike to agree to *anything* when Mike first lent him the use of the Keys essay.

So there you have it. What John T Kennedy is, in blunt terms, the crazy neighbor down the street, who borrows on the goodwill of his neighbors, and then pretends, simply because he has them in his possession, he has more of a right to them, than the original owners of the material.

And this tool can't figure out why his brand of "rational evangalism" doesn't work.
Well.. a giant sized economy clue might be for those in thrall with Kennedy's Tea and Crumpet's Circle Jerk No-Treason party is... looters don't make very good prosletyzers.

Wotta show, ladies and gents...
Wotta show!

2nd Hand Parasites Begging For Beck's Attention

2005-11-04T20:15:00.000-08:00

I just love watching Kennedy and the "No Treason" wankers beg for attention from Billy Beck.

Latest remarks, by Lopez and Kennedy seem to indicate the delusion on their part that Billy actually gives a flying crap what they have to say or think.

Kennedy writes:

"I'm curious as to just what Beck is doing to fight that war. That's no slap; I'm honestly curious."

I love how the very po-mo Kennedy is still hawking his "No Treason" site, with the tag lines in google that No Treason has "archives going back to 1998". Of course, everything in those "early years" of the "No Treason archives" is Billy's work... which Kennedy no longer has permission to have on his website.

John T Kennedy has never been honest.

Every day that Billy's stuff remains on his site, without his permission proves just how much of a second-handed parasite weasle he is, and always has been. But then what can you expect from somebody who's business practices are straight from the L.Ron Hubbard Business Management "tech"?

Elsworthy Toohey Lives!

2005-08-27T08:00:00.000-07:00

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.

fin.

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

2005-08-27T04:08:00.000-07:00

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.

*Irony*

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.

"No Treason" A Ghoulish Tea-Party in Cyberspace

2005-08-26T15:38:00.000-07:00

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.

Bizarre.

Well...

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

2005-08-26T10:03:00.000-07:00

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...

IP:                67.186.158.140
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.

Sure.

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.

John T Kennedy Wikipedia Vandal

2005-08-25T10:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Further Update

2005-08-23T17:50:00.000-07:00

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.

Update

2005-08-22T16:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Enter The OSA SockPuppet

2005-08-21T19:42:00.000-07:00

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
AND
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....

2005-08-21T19:31:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-21T19:22:00.000-07:00

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: Allstate Bell and Howell Nissan McDonalds Getty Oil Honeywell Mattel Ralph's Rockwell RotoRooter Pacific Stereo Sunkist Winston Tires Del Taco Wherehouse Broadway Department Stores Earthlink 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

2005-08-21T19:08:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archives article:

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

(snip)

"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:

Allstate
Bell and Howell
Nissan
McDonalds
Getty Oil
Honeywell
Mattel
Ralph's
Rockwell
RotoRooter
Pacific Stereo
Sunkist
Winston Tires
Del Taco
Wherehouse
Broadway Department Stores
Earthlink

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!
http://www.no-treason.com/weblog/

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

2005-08-20T21:45:00.000-07:00

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.

http://courtgate.coca.co.clark.nv.us:8490/DistrictCourt/asp/CaseActivity.asp

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.

Lynette

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 http://www.dianahsieh.com/scientology/index.html

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.

*see http://www.dianahsieh.com/lectures/wbaa.html

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 www.xenu.net 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:

http://www.casp.net/survival.html

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."

http://www.light-of-reason.blogspot.com/2002_11_03_light-of-reason_archive.html#84128115

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

2005-08-20T21:38:00.000-07:00

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.
http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html#ruin

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

2005-08-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Ernest

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:

2005-08-20T08:26:00.000-07:00

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:

Sometimes.

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.

Billy

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

2005-08-20T08:18:00.000-07:00

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:

...you'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

2005-08-20T08:04:00.000-07:00

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.

*THIS*

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

2005-08-20T07:44:00.000-07:00

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

or

"that sand is clothing" - --Ayn Rand

or

"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

2005-08-20T07:33:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-20T06:51:00.000-07:00

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... ..to 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?

What?

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?

Kendrick

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?

MWW

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

2005-08-20T06:36:00.000-07:00

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

WHAT CHILD???

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.

MWW

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)

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 4

2005-08-20T06:20:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archives h/t Mike Schneider

Kennedy wrote:

In what sense? I don't hold free riding to be a crime. I don't even hold it to be much of a moral issue in most cases. But free riding at the expense of a child you've brought into the world, a child that is not party to your decision and not able to protect itself from the consequences of *your* choice in any way - free riding of that sort is completely reprehensible. A decent man pays his way in life and he doesn't leave his own offspring to pick up the tab for value he has received.

I'm astonished you don't recognize that this is despicable behavior.

My response was:

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 responds:

He is if the kid pays for the ride.

I continued with:

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 responds

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. Just as the woman who aborts the child or abandons it is free riding on it. In these cases the child gets to pay for choices it was not party to and could not defend itself form.

My question:

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 responds:

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

And he then concludes with the following:

But Mike asked why a man who doesn't support his offspring should be considered a cad, and I explained why I consider such behavior reprehensible.

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 3

2005-08-20T06:12:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archive

From: "John T. Kennedy"
Date: Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:26 pm
Subject: Re: One Last Attempt to Get Through to "The Bruce"

Mike Schneider wrote:

Amusing, but I fail to see why this man is a "cad" in the first place if he has made no agreement to father a child ("sex" <> "implied contract"). Why is he supposed to suffer societal scorn for another's irresponsibility?

Kennedy responds:

I judge him to be of low character because he fails to take responsibility for the cost of his pleasure which will be borne by the child he sires. He has my scorn, and whether he as anyone else's scorn is their own lookout.

Mike responds:

Ah, excuse me.
*Who* is responsible?

Kennedy says:

In what sense? I don't hold free riding to be a crime. I don't even hold it to be much of a moral issue in most cases. But free riding at the expense of a child you've brought into the world, a child that is not party to your decision and not able to protect itself from the consequences of *your* choice in any way - free riding of that sort is completely reprehensible. A decent man pays his way in life and he doesn't leave his own offspring to pick up the tab for value he has received.

I'm astonished you don't recognize that this is despicable behavior

.
(Editorial: Now folks.. I would urge you to go to the current threads on "No Treason" where Billy Beck talks about not forcing anybody to pay for his health costs and this response comes from John Kennedy. Do you see the "Blank Out" here?" That's intellectual integrity for ya! No Treason Style!)

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 2

2005-08-20T06:04:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archives (h/t Mike Schneider)

From: Mike Schneider
Date: Sun Jul 14, 2002 10:41 pm
Subject: [American_Liberty] Re: One Last Attempt to Get Through to "The Bruce"

"The Bruce" had written:

Are you seriously of a mind that the population in general is going to make things difficult for the cads?

Lynette responds:

Think of it. A cad walks into Napa to buy a carburetor. The manager says, "Hold up one. Gotta check the Cadsheet first. Hey! You knock- up Norma Jean Frisbee over on Maple St and haven't paid a dime in support for her little sprog. Forget it, son, your coin's no good in here."

Mike Schneider says :

Amusing, but I fail to see why this man is a "cad" in the first place if he has made no agreement to father a child ("sex" <> "implied contract"). Why is he supposed to suffer societal scorn for another's irresponsibility?

"Cinderella can't you see...."

Mike.

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 1

2005-08-20T05:52:00.000-07:00

This is where it began... Kendrick McPeters had been slammin' left right and center on the American Liberty yahoo group, on the Choice For Men theme.

After Kennedy made his statement of unprinciples, on the subject he decides to weigh in...

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.

Kendrick responds:

You're telling me that a BLASTOCYTE has the nature of a rational animal? With which of its handful of cells does it generate rational thought? Exactly what *choices* can a blastocyte make with its purportedly "rational nature?"

Please take a look at this photo...

..to make sure that you grok the nature of what you're calling a rational animal.

Kennedy had remarked:

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

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!)

Kendrick

THIS is your brain on "game-theory/prisoner's dilemna"

2005-08-20T05:46:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archives: h/t Mike Schneider

From: "John T. Kennedy"
Date: Sun Jul 14, 2002 9:42 pm
Subject: The economics of sexual choice

In a free society a child is conceived as a consequence of choice. It is a fact of nature that the mother will necessarily bear a cost of that choice that no one else will bear.

If she has chosen her procreational parner well, then things will tend to sort themselves out nicely. If she has chosen unwisely then she is faced with paying a much higher price for her choice.

To compel a lousy procreational partner to support the mother and child reduces the cost of poor decisions for he mother.

When you effectively subsidize poor decisions you're only going to see more of them. And it is inevitable that more children down the road will bear heavy costs as a consequence of the fact that you lowered the cost of poor decisions.

The woman chooses her procreational partner. It is destructive madness to lower the cost of that choice to her.

JTK

(Editorial...what's really funny is.... I never actually paid attention to what John was doing with this at the time. But now I get it... in crystal clear terms. Not able to dervice a principled position on the ethics of sex and reproduction, and the morality of these things, JTK slides off into "game-theory and prisoner's dilemna" reasoning to try and conjure up a reason for his instincts.)

The Crotch-Fruit Cock Up: Part 4

2005-08-20T05:26:00.000-07:00

Lynette comes to Sabotta's defence for objecting to a word that she herself used:

"kendrick_mcpeters" wrote:

Perhaps I couldn't imagine any rational person getting all that worked up over the words "pornslut" and "crotchfruit." I must say, even now, I'm having a hard goddamn time comprehending the level of vitriol that has resulted from this choice of words on my part.

John explained it. He sees (or saw) the use of the terms as representative of a dehumanizing attitude toward sluts and crotchfruit, in general. He attributed your blunt terminology as being linked to the really piss poor attitude that the cops get from having whatever complexes they carried into the job combined with being exposed to pitiful, lying scum on a day by day basis.

My own perceived rants regarding numbskulled, disfunctional wimpresses represent my very sincere concern that irresponsible women are a bane to the gender. I don't go light on them, either.

The ironic thing is that this thread's pornslut in question is the least loathable on the goddamn useless leech scale. I'm not a follower of porn star dish, but as far as I know few pornsluts, for
all the high magnitude sucking they do on a professional level, have been involved in much state-sucking activity. They're into capital and the nature of their business is that they *earn* it.

It is the soccer mom leech legions that I can't abide. The "respectable" types, to whom the cops, state, and media give the VIP treatment that are the most insufferable representations of
loathsome irresponsibility. They are the picpickpocketing princess advocates of spousal support and entitlement programs, deserving of the utmost contempt.

Lynette

(No Treason Rule #1. If Lynette uses a word that is "dehumanizing to women or children" then that's ok. But if anybody else does... they are somehow doing something very wrong. That's intellectual integrity for ya! No Treason Style!")

The Crotch-Fruit Cock Up: Part 3

2005-08-20T05:22:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archives: h/t Mike Schneider

From: "areswarren"
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 8:33 pm
Subject: Re: Choice For Men

John Sabotta wrote:

Still...

I know Lynette, and I've come to know this Kendrick. I don't confuse the two, and I don't confuse what lies behind their respective words.

Lynette (Ed.who actually used the word crotchfruit before Kendrick did) says:

At least he didn't refer to the pornslut's little snotmonster as a cunt dropping. Now that would have been rude.

Lynette

HUMAN ACTIO*N part 4 final...

2005-08-20T05:02:00.000-07:00

From: "somena2001"
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 8:15 am
Subject: Re: H U M A N A C T I O N somena2001

Billy had written:

Whaddya say? Am I right, or what?

I thought it was that paragraph and the one that follows the next...

Whole quote
Page 115-116 Human Action, Von Mises

"Playing a game can therefore be called an action. But it is not permissible to reverse this statement and to call every action a game or to deal with all actions as if they were games. The immediate aim in playing a game is to defeat the partner according to the rules of the game. This is a peculiar and special case of acting. Most actions do not aim at anybody's defeat or loss. They aim at an improvement in conditions. It can happen that this improvement is attained at some other men's expense. But this is certainly not always the case. It is, to put it mildly, certainly not the case within the regular operation of a social system based on the division of labor."

This was my top pick:

"There is not the slightest analogy between playing games and the conduct of business within a market society. The card player wins money by outsmarting his antagonist. The businessman makes money by supplying customers with goods they want to acquire. There may exist an analogy between the strategy of a card player and that of a bluffer. There is no need to investigate this problem. He who interprets the conduct of business as trickery is on the wrong path. "

And EITHER this....

"The characteristic feature of games is the antagonism of two or more players or groups of players.The characteristic feature of business within a society, i.e., within an order based on the division of labor, is concord in the endeavors of its members. As soon as they begin to antagonize one another, a tendency toward social disintegration emerges."

Or This...

"Within the frame of a market economy competition does not involve antagonism in the sense in which this term is applied to the hostile clash of incompatible interests. Competition, it is true, may sometimes or even often evoke in the competitors those passions of hatred and malice which usually accompany the intention of inflicting evil on other people. Psychologists are therefore prone to confuse combat and competition. But praxeology must beware of such artificial and misleading difference between catallactic competition and combat. Competitors aim at excellence and preeminence in accomplishments within a system of mutual cooperation. The function of competition is to assign to every member of a social system that position in which he can best serve the whole of society and all its members. It is a method of selecting the most able man for each performance. Where there is social cooperation, there some variety of selection must be applied. Only where the assignment of various individuals to various tasks is effected by the dictator's decisions alone and the individuals concerned do not aid the dictator by endeavors to represent their own virtues and abilities in the most favorable light, is there no competition."

As for Nash, he is the recently celebrated Nobel Prize winning mathematician who was featured in the movie "A Beautiful Mind"

In the movie - the explanation of his theory is given, that one night while in a bar with a bunch of his college buddies in walks a very beautiful blonde and her 4 less attractive companions.

Nash suggests that if they all go after the blonde, there individual efforts will cancel each other out - so that none of them will score with her. Further, the other 4 women will probably also reject subsequent advances since no woman wants to feel like she is "second pick"

Nash says that if they all agree to hit on the less attractive women and ignore the most attractive woman - they will collectively and indipendently achieve a far better result, than if they are all trying to competitively and in conflict with each other seek out the attention and favour of the most attractive woman.

From that, he *seemed* to mathematically prove that competition which involves voluntary cooperation will generally achieve a better result for all parties involved than competition
that relies upon conflict and confrontation.

Whats truly strange is that I think Nash was right in declaring that Adam Smith's formula was "incomplete" Smith said -

"In competition, individual ambition serves the common good."

Nash posited that -

"The maximum benefit to individual members of the group can be realized if each individual works for his own benefit and the group's"

He does not, as many idiots suggest contadict Smith's economic theory - rather, he adds to it, in a signifigant way. Where things have gone absolutley haywire, is the way people have subsequently attributed competition to be "conflict" driven, in the market, rather than co-operative.

You are spot on in pointing out that human beings are not, naturally in the market and sphere of human action "Prisoners" I also think that this is an area that some objectivists/libertarians get screwed up in their thinking - because they assume that competition which does not involve voluntary co-operation for mutual benefits of all concerned - is somehow a superior way
of achieving goals in the market. It's ok - and in some ways a GOOD thing to look at how your actions and decisions will impact those around you.

Similarly - the other side - and most leftist political theory conclude that individuals selfishly seeking their own goals, are somehow acting in detriment to other people.

Do you remember this? (from email last month)

Why do actions based on contradictory or flawed premises so often result in the exact opposite result from what was intended?

Or in the case of Govt. particularly - Why does policy which is based on contradictory and flawed premises, often result in the exact opposite result from which the policy was intended -
Is it a principle? It is even true? I mean in a simplistic sense -it jibes with what Rand talked about in terms of reality not being cheated - but I dont know that she explored this to the extent that I am thinking - or that it has been explored in these terms - elsewhere.

If you know of where it has been explored - or would care to share your thoughts on the matter, I would be really happy.

Remember I wrote a few months back on American liberty which you responded to...I said

"To elaborate on this idea of a certain kind of evil that needs naming... It's worse than that... Its MORE like - how the productive people in society are punished for their productivity WITH thatproductivity."

I've been pushing through on that - and my boyfriend and I came up with this... but I am not satisfied with it yet.

Something a little more sinister than parasitism:

In the case of laws intended to alter relationships (i.e. tenant/landlord, employer/employee, criminal/victim) the law is designed to help one party to the relationship at the expense of the other. There is, therefore, an intended "victim" of all such legislation. The interests of the victims have been ignored in the legislation and for this reason the victims inevitably act in ways calculated to cause the purpose of the legislation (which harms them) to be thwarted. The economic relationships are intended to be altered to the detriment of one party, but as is typical in economic situations, the cost is invariably shared between the parties to the relationship, to the detriment of the intended beneficiary as well as to the detriment of the intended victim of the legislation.

More fundamentally, the use of force is always a negative sum game. It results in a net loss. When the intention of one party is to gain by the use of force, the problem is that the use of force results in a net loss. The only way for a net loss to result in a gain for someone is for someone else to suffer not only the entire net loss, but additional loss as well. No one wants to be on the losing end of that kind of situation and people endeavor mightily by negotiations, actions and even violence to ensure that a different and more equal distribution of losses will occur. Since the net result of the whole process is a loss, the probability of any party coming out with a gain is relatively low. In general, the attempt win some gain by forcing people to do something which is detrimental to their interests is more likely to result in a loss than a gain for the one who makes the attempt.

MWW

HUMAN ACTIO*N part 3: Beck responds

2005-08-20T04:57:00.000-07:00

From American Liberty Archives: h/t Mike Schneider

Billy remarks:
I just jumped online to dig around a bit for a reference to something I don't have (and I don't think I'm going to find it), after chasing through two volumes of Nozick, Rawls, Sciabarra, with smidgens of That Woman here & there (because part of this issue deals with the nature of facts).

However, this lands in the BTW e-mail download:

> The portion that begins...
> "there is not the slightest analogy..."?

You go to the head of the class, kiddo. That's the second of the two paragraphs I have in mind.

Whaddya say? Am I right, or what?

The *whole* of "game theory" -- the very idea -- as a serious ethical/political inquiry is perfect nonsense. It's a fine example of ivory-towered twits with too much time on their hands. I say it's the ethical counterpart to "deconstruction" in literature. It's just bullshit.

Beck had written:

To anyone who has this volume, I will not tell you where they are. Go find 'em. If you've read the book and you do not have a custom-index note for "Game Theory" in your own hand in the endpapers, then you're simply not studying to a purpose that I, for one, can seriously respect.

I had asked:

I was wondering what your thoughts were on Nash's equilibrium?

I don't know what you're talking about.

My remark:

The genius of Mises is in part - that he explained in the aforementioned cite, WHY and as far as I see it on the time-line, he did it long before Nash's theory was published and began to be recognized as valid.

Well, I don't know Nash, but Mises' address of this topic is prophetic prophylaxis. I don't know how he saw this coming, but there is no question to me but that he nips it in the bud.

I'll go over your cites later, but one thing that I want to point out here is that game theory is essentially futile because of its attempt to completely account for human action in exactly the ways that serious economists (i.e.: capitalists or "classicists") understand as impossible. It attempts to get around this by *arbitrarily* constraining its data-sets. The simplest and most obvious example of this is in the "Prisoner's Dilemma". I see people seriously talking about that stoopid thing, and it never occurs to them to think about its bloody *name*, and the fact that people are *not* prisoners.

Game theory is essentially a zero-sum approach as taken up by economists, and it just *amazes* me how many otherwise bright people fall for it.

Billy

HUMAN ACTIO*N a response to Billy's remarks on Mises

2005-08-20T04:50:00.000-07:00

From: "MWW"
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 5:46 am
Subject: Re: H U M A N A C T I O N

Billy had written:

This could be conclusively demonstrated with -- believe it or not -- artful development of a mere *two paragraphs* in Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action", and here's the point of this note after a short time at outlining from them:

I respond to his question by citing:

The portion that begins...
"there is not the slightest analogy..."?

Billy had remarked:

To anyone who has this volume, I will not tell you where they are. Go find 'em. If you've read the book and you do not have a custom-index note for "Game Theory" in your own hand in the endpapers, then you're simply not studying to a purpose that I, for one, can seriously respect.

My question:

I was wondering what your thoughts were on Nash's equilibrium? I believe Mises work is far more signifgant than Nash's in the sense that Nash recognized that game-theory applied to
economics as presented at that time was incomplete.

The genius of Mises is in part - that he explained in the aforementioned cite, WHY and as far as I see it on the time-line, he did it long before Nash's theory was published and began to be recognized as valid.

See Cite Here:

"Authors Ed Nosal, an economic adviser and Peter Rupert, a senior economic adviser at the Bank explain that Nash really owes his fame to his work in game theory, which models strategic interactions between people, firms, countries, and so on. The authors write that "some of the most important and pathbreaking work in economics undertaken in the latter half of the twentieth century simply could not have taken place without the benefit of Nash's insights." ...

(Editorial Note from MWW - this is bullshit - considering Mises's work and precise praxeological analysis is far more important)

From another source...

"John Nash burst upon the economics scene in 1950 with two papers that have defined the subsequent direction of economic applications of game theory in both its cooperative andnoncooperative modes. The latter line was launched by his simple and elegant general proof ofthe existence of a noncooperative equilibrium in n-person games."

That's exactly what Mises point is

"In Nash's framework eachplayer takes the others' strategies as given and chooses his own strategy; equilibrium is where allthese choices are mutually consistent. In the standard Marshallian or Walrasian theory ofcompetitive markets, each individual consumer or firm takes the market prices as given andmakes or her own purchase and sale decisions; the equilibrium price is where all these choicesare mutually consistent. Therefore Nash's approach is a natural extension to strategic situationsof the familiar economic framework of choice and equilibrium. What is more, Nash's theorem works for any number of players, and with arbitrary mixtures of common interests and conflicts of interest; this is needed in economics where many people interact, and there are potential mutual gains from trade as well as distributive conflicts. All this makes Nash equilibrium such an appropriate way to model interactions of rational individuals that it has taken over the field of economics and spread to many other fields."

Nash was wrong in declaring that Adam Smith was only partially correct in his theories on competition. As far as I can tell - Nash's work was an attempt to analyze n-player "games" in the context of what can be done to achieve the best possible outcome for all involved.

The market does this naturally for the reasons that Mises explains because the market is not "conflict" driven - but competition driven which for some bizarro reason are terms being used currently both incorrectly and interchangeably.

MWW

Human.. Not Human... What's the Difference?

2005-08-20T04:43:00.000-07:00

From American Liberty Archives: h/t Mike Schneider

From: "Billy Beck"
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 2:54 am
Subject: Choice For Men

Sabotta said:

Well, I reject this "human/not-human" stuff. Everybody is human.

That looks like a statement of principle. Let's break it down. This is where somebody had better invoke Godwin's Law, because I'm going to the wall. Tell me...

Sabotta had also remarked:

Everybody is faced with moral choice; everyone is capable of choosing right or wrong, everyone is therefore human, for better or worse.

...whether you would have counted on Adolf Hitler to choose The Right thing.

Here's the thing about the distinction that I talk about, John: some individuals will *not*, and they will refuse precisely because life on human terms -- among human beings -- is the very thing that they cannot and will not abide. They choose to live like animals.

Sabotta had said:

If collectivists are not "human" than what right do we have to hold them morally accountable?

*I* do that because of the fact of their own choice to live below their nature.

Sabotta had also said:

In fact, if they're not human, why should we respect their rights at all?

I don't. But that's not the same thing as...

Sabotta ended his remarks with:

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.

...this. I'm not like *them*.

I'd thought about changing the subject header, and decided against it because this one could not be more appropriate.

Billy

The Crotch-Fruit Cock-Up Act 2: Sabotta Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Kipawa Condor

2005-08-20T04:29:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archives: h/t Mike Schneider

From: Kipawa Condor
Date: Fri Jul 12, 2002 9:22 pm
Subject: Re: Choice For Men

Kendrick writes

John Sabotta requoted 30 lines of text before objecting thusly:

"Pornslut's crotchfruit"?

Regardless of the validity or lack of validity of the rest of your arguments, you are a despicable piece of shit, Mr. "J. Kendrick McPeters"

Kendrick also says after getting batted around by various weasles:

"Two comments are in order. First, I am somewhat surprised that not one of the people on this list who knows me from USENET, and thus is well aware that I don't merit this type of ad-hominen abuse, bothered to object,

I responded:

I personally thought this was one of Sabotta's love-taps - It's hard to tell whether he was saying that out of venom or affection. I was waiting for clarification.

Sabotta remarked

"Uh, no it wasn't. I hate people who refer to women - otherwise blameless women - and their children in that fashion. Women who appear in porn films are human beings, if sometimes rather dim human beings; their children, if any, are not "crotchfruit."

Kipawa Condor chimes in finally

The phrase does not appear to be original with McPeters:

Sabotta says further:

Kendrick's vicious suggestion that porn actresses were some lower form of life - simply for being porn actresses - is what set me off. I despise people like him. He's like the local cops around here who used to file complaints by prostitutes of abuse, assaults by clients with the acronym "NHI" - "No Human Involved." To hell with him. I don't care about the rest of his arguments.

Kipawa says:

I'll forgive him a lot just for this thread:

It'd be a lesser world if there were no JKM.

(As it turns out and ask Kipawa Condor pointed out, Lynette Warren, Mistress of the No Treason Blog actually seems to have used the phrase "crotchfruit" first)

Strangely this does not mean anything to Sabotta... That he has criticized Kendrick for using a word, and claimed some sort of awful moral judgement upon him... but he has no interest in applying the same judgement to his friend Lynette:

Sabotta Remarks:

Still... I know Lynette, and I've come to know this Kendrick. I don't confuse the two, and I don't confuse what lies behind their respective words. I like and respect Lynette. My opinion of Kendrick should be obvious. But I should really shut up now.

"Mr. Kendricks, meet Lynn Lopatin" BANG! BANG! BANG!

Now *That* is Intellectual Integrity For Ya! No Treason Style!

The CrotchFruit Cock-Up

2005-08-20T04:21:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archives: h/t Mike Schneider

From: John Sabotta
Date: Sat Jul 13, 2002 1:40 am
Subject: RE: [American_Liberty] Re: Choice For Men

Sabotta objects to McPeter's use of the term "Crotchfruit"

Well, I was objecting solely to the characterization involved in "pornslut's crotchfruit." I didn't care about the rest. To repeat what I said to Meaghan:
"Uh, no it wasn't. I hate people who refer to women - otherwise blameless women - and their children in that fashion. Women who appear in porn films are human beings, if sometimes rather dim human beings; their children, if any, are not "crotchfruit." Kendrick's vicious suggestion that porn actresses were some lower form of life - simply for being porn actresses - is what set me off. I despise people like him. He's like the local cops around here who used to file complaints by prostitutes of abuse, assaults by clients with the acronym "NHI" - "No Human Involved." To hell with him."

"I don't care about the rest of his arguments."

I don't know. Maybe I was a little irritable that day. Sometimes I am, for various reasons unconnected to this newsgroup. Maybe I have a unrealistic view of women.

Mike Schneider Responds:

We're not talking about the judgement of pigs here, but willing depravity: "Women" have nothing to do with it -- that's a surface aspect that's throwing you off in this particular case. J. was writing of one sub-category of cheese-eating weezil leeches of the sort Billy has frequently described as persons who voluntarily *refrain* from engaging in what it _means_ to "be human".

Sabotta responds:

Well, I reject this "human/not-human" stuff. Everybody is human. Everybody is faced with moral choice; everyone is capable of choosing right or wrong, everyone is therefore human, for better or worse. If collectivists are not "human" than what right do we have to hold them
morally accountable? In fact, if they're not human, why should we respect their rights at all? 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.

And if newborn innocent "crotchfruit" aren't human beings - well, in that case, I prefer not to be counted as a human being either. When Washington is nuked, and the virtuous community of free rational humanity is built on the mound of millions of rotting corpses - well, then, please shoot me as well. Because this vision is too beautiful for me to participate in. I would prefer not to sully its purity.

But most of all, I'd prefer to be done away with because this is a world of shit, and I'd prefer to leave a world of shit to Mr. Kendrick McPeters. He can be King Kakka - king of shit, scourge of
crotchfruit, king of Hell for all I care. He's a very competent, quick thinking, capable self-reliant type.

Sorry, Mike. If you think I ought to be given the boot, boot away.

I should just stop now.

JS

HUMAN ACTIO*N

2005-08-20T04:05:00.000-07:00

Beck weighs in (h/t Mike Schneider American Liberty Archive)

There is an element of my style -- at its best -- that relies on a sort of mis-direction: a head-feint going one way that can hook the reader, by some process that I don't completely understand, while he or she is really being taken someplace different of greater importance. I can't tell how this
developed, precisely, because I've never really thought about it with critical precision. I have a couple of ideas, but it's never been terribly important to track it down. The most recent example would be the lead to my "Laughter" article that Kennedy was patient enough to put up at the No
Treason blog. A far better example, I think, is "I, Criminal". That thing goes off like a bomb in the final paragraphs: nobody reading it for the first time has the least clue to what it is *all* about until it gets to the end of the primrose path.

I point all this out by way of giving away a tiny piece of what I have in mind, next.

I generally subscribe and try to live by the precept: "Never apologize, and never explain." Being the extremely miserable bastard that I am, however, even I realize that mere mortals fallen under my hammer sometimes don't deserve it. In this case, I refer to Kennedy.

I actually do feel badly that he had to take the time to mutilate a bit of verse found at Friedman's joint in order to recover some semblance of dignity for his blog after I shot the place up with both barrels in only two sentences. I must admit, also, that, with the presentation of what is, in fact, a nice photograph of the Machinery Miscreant (Friedman), I was charmed down to mere multiples of exasperation below seething fury at the appearance of yet another peep-eyed recitation of his fatuity over life as a game. (I have, you see, been up & down all this with him before, and he insists on behaving like a fence-post with buggy software installed on a 4-bit datapath.)

That's why I took it in mind to throw down an item on his fallacy, which is very general indeed.

This could be conclusively demonstrated with -- believe it or not -- artful development of a mere *two paragraphs* in Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action", and here's the point of this note after a short time at outlining from them:

To anyone who has this volume, I will not tell you where they are. Go find 'em. If you've read the book and you do not have a custom-index note for "Game Theory" in your own hand in the endpapers, then you're simply not studying to a purpose that I, for one, can seriously respect.

And more: anyone subscribed to this list who does *not* own this volume, is very poorly armed for the ideological battles of the day. Mises is a groove to burn. That is: a glance at the book will not
necessarily reveal what becomes, on closer inspection, palpable idiosyncrasy suffusing the entire work, but which, on comprehensive study, becomes astonishing, delightful, and compelling *illumination*. It is always a crashing bore to confront a person who complains of uncommon usage or phrasing and who goes running to a dictionary for authority at the sight of a person who defines their terms and conditions their arguments from original synthesis. (I've been pot-shooting that quivering "xofpi" idiot in Usenet lately, a fine example of the species: someone who simply will not
face the *possibility* of understanding, and who uses this tactic and its variants like a medieval peasant warding off vampires.) Within a few pages, however, his style becomes splendidly familiar, with clarity and power very rarely equalled and surpassed by none.

Get yours today, and go to work with a master.

Billy

Kendrick McPeters On Choice For Men

2005-08-20T03:49:00.000-07:00

From The American Liberty archives: h/t Mike Schneider

From: "J. Kendrick McPeters"
Date: Wed Jul 10, 2002 3:40 am
Subject: Choice For Men

The Bruce said to Meaghan:

If he had no intention of fathering a child, then he better wear a condom, ensure the woman uses birth control pills, or else he better be good at knowing when to pull out.

[Pardon me for jumping in, folx, but I argued the hell out of this subject during a brief stint at Free Republic (so shoot me, I wanted to try my hand at anonymous posting... but "conservative" feminazis got me permanently banned within 96 hours of my debut) and I happen to have a lot of my FR arguments ready for cut 'n paste usage. Like frinstance:]

Let's find out if you really believe this...

One night, a year or so ago, I channel surfed past Howard Stern on "E", and saw a woman being interviewed. The chyron at the bottom of the screen said (name of porn star, which I've forgotten) had sex with 300 men for video."

It transpired that this young lovely had set some sort of record in the annals of gang-bangery. The way this worked is, the producers of this video put an ad in the paper asking for unpaid volunteers to have sex with this woman. All they had to do was bring proof of legal age, and a recent (negative) AIDS test--- then they were humping for glory!

This really happened, okay? Three hundred or so men volunteered to act as unpaid assembly line studs, so that a world record in porno could be set. So, my question to you is, what if the solitary female in that video had gotten pregnant? Would you really want to see the DA subpoena the names of all those modern day circus geeks, compel them to have their DNA tested against the pornslut's crotchfruit, and then saddle the unlucky stiff with twenty years of child support payments?

Do you really think that would be just? Do you really think any of these guys had procreation on their mind when they got partook of "sloppy three-hundredths?"

Personally, I kinda doubt those dudes were consenting to anything but a free piece, and a place in the sticky-paged history books. Do you want to disagree?

The decision to have sex is a 2-way street. If the woman must take responsibility for her decision, so must the man. If he has any reason to wonder whether or not she's on birth control, then maybe he better decide not to have sex with her -- but even if he is sure, that's no reason not to wear a condom.

Women have babies. Period. Full stop. If men want to have any involvement with them, they should marry their sex partners, or concoct some other sort of legal contract with them.

Otherwise, the baby rightfully belongs 100% to the woman who carried it for nine long months, and that will always be true as a moral principle, whether the laws of the state happen to recognize it, or not.

That is precisely what is meant by "sex is NOTHING to fuck around with". Because of that, I don't believe in the "Choice For Men" argument: I think that what has to be emphasized is mutual responsibility toward each other. After all, that is why we quite often refer to our lovers as "partners" -- & what does the word "partner" mean, if not the mutual responsibility of each partner to the other? OTOH, if mutual responsibility is what Meaghan means by the "Choice For Men" argument, than I agree with her wholly.

I think you need to do a little research into the child support laws. You will probably be amazed to find out that NO CONSENT to sex is required in order to legally shackle a man to 18-21 years of child support. You may also be surprised that debtor's prison has been brought back for men who are unwilling-- or even unable-- to pay court ordered child support. You perhaps will be surprised to hear that women are so totally in the driver's seat, that child support payments can be ordered even in cases where the man offered to marry the girl he knocked up, and she declined-- saying in effect, "I don't want to have anything to do with you, but I'll gladly take
at gunpoint 1/3 of your income for the next 21 years, thankyewverrymuch." And in perhaps the most Kafkaesque travesty, CS laws in some states (Oregon, for one) mandate that men pay child support to women who have babies sired by other men, simply because they make the mistake of shacking up with a woman who has kids, and then staying past some arbitrary cut-off point.

Child support laws, along with all the other "family laws" that undermine the stability of the traditional family, and provide incentives for the bastardy epidemic that is contributing greatly to our slide into the abyss, should be among the first things that a true lover of liberty should wish to see abolished.

*********

PS: Here's a few more quotes from my brief stint at Freeping:

As far as sex without consequences goes, what kind of incentive do you call "heads, he'll marry me, tails, I'll get a child support check"? Have you, perchance, taken a look at the external world, to see how your lovely theory is actually working?

So far, no one in the Slut Subsidy Brigade has attempted to explain the paradox I've mentioned over and over again--- when men weren't legally obligated to pay child support, and when good birth control hadn't been invented, and abortion was generally illegal, there were almost no out of wedlock births. Nowadays, when all these factors have been reversed, bastardy is running rampant. What could account for that, other than women responding to changing incentives by becoming sexually loose? Men certainly haven't changed much in that time, I'm pretty darn sure.

If the child support laws aren't responsible for the ten fold increase in the white bastardy rate, then what, pray tell, is? By all means, please enlighten me!

[and here's a whole post wherein I tried to knock some sense into a brainless feminazi]

BRAINLESS FEMINAZI said

As regards deceipt in paternity, there is virtually no way to prove such a thing so it is a smokescreen, a he said/ she said situation.

I responded :
Whether a marriage (or child support contract) has been entered into is far removed from he said/she said. It's a matter of public record; an open and shut case, with no wriggle room or ambiguity...

BRAINLESS FEMINAZI replies

Unless you want a federal marshall in very bedroom you have no valid point on this issue.

My response:

Of course I have a valid point-- to wit, if a woman has sex with a man without first getting some sort of legal commitment in writing, she has no-one but herself to blame, if she winds up preggers. She could've said no. She could've demanded a marriage or a child support agreement. But she didn't, and yet you expect to use a federal marshall to shake down her non-committed recreational sex partner for one third of his income for the next twenty years...

And here I thought you were opposed to legalized prostitution! How silly of me! You just want whores to be able to unilaterally dictate the terms of the contract, and to extort a vastly higher fee than the free market would bear. (I'm sure this is justified in the name of feminist equality, which is different from the "phallocentric" western notion of "equality," right?)

BRAINLESS FEMINAZI sez:

I believe such deceipt is rare.

I respond:

It's also "rare" for federal stormtroopers to slaughter women and children by assaulting a church with tanks firing an internationally banned war gas. But whenever injustice happens, it should be roundly condemned-- no matter how "rare."

Incidentally, is your compassion for twelve year olds also available for adult men, whose seed is "homesteaded" by women that wish to "save a trip to the sperm bank?" Just curious...

[bear in mind that all this looked much better with the HTML boldings and italics....]

Kendrick

Schneider Weighs In

2005-08-20T03:45:00.000-07:00

From American Liberty archives: h/t Schneider

The purpose of a game-theory analysis is an attempt to appeal to the pragmatics of those who one presumes are not amenable to arguments from reason.

It's wasted effort on weezils; the minute 11/03 rolls around, they remember where their bread is buttered.

Mike.

Beck Dumping a Load on "Game Theory" nonsense

2005-08-20T03:35:00.000-07:00

From the American Liberty Archives h/t Mike Schnieder

Beck on "Game Theory" and squinting at data and not thinking in principles:

> From: The Bruce
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:21 AM
> Billy Beck wrote:
> > http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Property/Property.html
> >
> > .If I see one more game theory analysis of *anything but
> > a game*, I'm going to start taking big fat steaming shits on
> > David Friedman's doorstep every morning.
>
> Well, I doubt he's aiming it at you, anyway.

I don't care.

> More likely, it's for the Rawls-heads, because they seem to like
> that sort of thing.

*Fuck* those dipshit beanie-heads. Look: by the time this crap settles on the street, you end up with a bunch of concrete-bound bat-blind animeats stumbling around who can't sort through the simplest ethical question without running it through a laboratory matrix before they finally give up and take a vote. IOW: they end up at a point where they don't even know what a "principle" *is*, far less how to actually integrate or analyze one logically.

Ideas matter, Bruce. This is just horseshit, and I don't mind saying it. There is no such thing as an "amoral" theory of rights, for the *obvious* reason that rights are *political* principles by which *values* are secured. If Friedman can't do any better than his simply human "it's wicked to steal" intuition, then he should just shut the fuck up and stay out of the debate, because his crap is giving a lot of impressionable (i.e.: unthinking) people the impression that "gaming" this shit is a proper way to go at it, and I'm here to say that life is *not* a game.

Billy

Welcome to the "Not Reason" Blog

2005-08-20T03:10:00.000-07:00

I'm your hostess, and I hope to be serving up lots of yummy delicious blogging fare.

Sometimes focusing on some old tunes from the usenet discussions past and keeping tabs on the current production of the "No Treason" blog run by John T Kennedy, and his long suffering companion Lynette Warren.

I hope to explore the evolution of this new variant of anarcho-capitalism as explicated by Kennedy and his dwindling crew of No-Treasonites. I'll be looking at it's stated premises and the on-going swirling contradictions contained therein.

Some topics that I would like to explore...

1. Why life is not a "prisoner's dilemna"

2. Epistemology of Libertarianism

3. The ethics of sanction and/or withholding sanction

4. Property rights, including intellectual property rights

And to kick things off:

5. An exploration about the morality of sex, reproduction, contraception and consequences

Bon Appetite!

Not Reason - Mirror for the No-Treason Website

Are These People *Clams* ? (Cult of Scientology?)

Beck's Final Say On The Subject

Lopez's suggestion

Because John T Kennedy Is An Ignorant Idiot

Lynette Warren Revealed

John T Kennedy of No Treason Steals

John T Kennedy As The Eleanor Rigby Of BlogWord....

"John T Kennedy" The Looter and Parasite!

2nd Hand Parasites Begging For Beck's Attention

Elsworthy Toohey Lives!

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

"No Treason" A Ghoulish Tea-Party in Cyberspace

"The Apple Dumpling, No Treason Gang" Strikes Again

John T Kennedy Wikipedia Vandal

Further Update

Update

Enter The OSA SockPuppet

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

Tim Starr Questions Kennedy About "Hubbard Business Management" Technology

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

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

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

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

Human Beings Qua Human Beings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 4

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 3

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 2

"Every Sperm is Sacred" as done by "No Treason" part 1

*THIS* is your brain on "game-theory/prisoner's dilemna"

The Crotch-Fruit Cock Up: Part 4

The Crotch-Fruit Cock Up: Part 3

H*U*M*A*N A*C*T*I*O*N part 4 final...

H*U*M*A*N A*C*T*I*O*N part 3: Beck responds

H*U*M*A*N A*C*T*I*O*N a response to Billy's remarks on Mises

Human.. Not Human... What's the Difference?

The Crotch-Fruit Cock-Up Act 2: Sabotta Gets His Ass Handed To Him By Kipawa Condor

The CrotchFruit Cock-Up

H*U*M*A*N A*C*T*I*O*N

Kendrick McPeters On Choice For Men

Schneider Weighs In

Beck Dumping a Load on "Game Theory" nonsense

Welcome to the "Not Reason" Blog

Are These People Clams ? (Cult of Scientology?)

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

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

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

THIS is your brain on "game-theory/prisoner's dilemna"

HUMAN ACTIO*N part 4 final...

HUMAN ACTIO*N part 3: Beck responds

HUMAN ACTIO*N a response to Billy's remarks on Mises

HUMAN ACTIO*N