RE: not playing so nice

First, like our poetry discussion, where does preaching end or even begin?
Hell, where does rhetoric end or begin? Or is it ALL rhetoric, including
Jacques at the end of that long wonderful tradition? But again, in Omlor
world Jim, calling some one names really doesn't matter since it is all
"that's just me". John draws the lines where ever the hell he wants and
thinks that's a point or something. What's a little sheep diddling to an
Omlor? But absurdly it upsets him. Maybe John, you need your own sheep?
With all your penchant for stickiness what is a little sleaziness between
"that's just me" Omlor entities, isn't Ashcroft in your world?
 
John, you herald the certainty of Omlor world with "that's just me" and then
you go around accusing. Why should I expect anything else, in Omlor world
praise and accusations are all the same, requiring rhetorical evidence is
just more rhetoric Jim.
 
Jim, you can say that John O. has some legitimate claims here but that would
only drag him kicking and screaming into our world but that would be far
from your sacred middle ground. Either Ashcroft is guilty of what he is
accused of or he is not but we as others could never make that judgment with
any certainty in Omlor world, any Judgment passed would be arbitrary and
capricious. What is proof? The testimony of witnesses and evidence. Now
to the self contained made up minds of the Omlor's, witnesses and evidence
are the rhetoric to be used to make accusations against your enemies and
denied when contrary to their certain unfaithfulness. Jim, you ask for
something that John O. is incapable of producing nor recognizing, namely
witness and evidence that exists outside of an Omlor world free of rhetoric.
(Jim I just said the same thing three different ways if that helps you
understand.)
 
John, Omlor's have no basis for judgment yet you accuse Ashcroft. If
Ashcroft is guilty your accusation can only stick in the world with Truth,
and if he is Truly guilty then I will join you in judgment. I am judging
your world John because it accuses without Truth, but if I were in Omlor
world I couldn't judge it nor you the same way I have been characterizing
your accusations, our if or 't'ruths are out of sync your accusations are
nothing but attacks against my ideologies and my accusations would be the
same, true meaningless democracy and all judgment becomes laughable or
rather sad but then again when 't'ruth reigns it becomes just absurd if you
have any inkling of Truth. Actually it becomes chaos because laughter,
sadness and even absurdity mean nothing without Truth. I know I am no
erudite continental philosopher but my simple single mind can at least see
this and that is the point, some of us just aren't clever enough to fool
ourselves. You seem to be intelligent and from reading your dissertation on
line, most likely the most intelligent person on this list save Scottie
(laying it on thick Scottie for that free copy of your next book) but that
is your personal cross to bear. Take a little advice from a simple man with
dirty calloused hands, quit thinking yourself into Borges style mazes. And
my recognition of your intelligence is not flattery nor rhetoric, like all
things be they guns, words, muscles, or brains it can be a wonderful tool
but it can wreak an awful lot of havoc.
 
Jim, NOW call me a preacher, and I am shutting up for now.
 
Daniel
 
 
 
... I really don't see too many people preaching on these boards. Daniel
almost does, but honestly I have a hard time making out what he says
sometimes too.
Jim

However, making accusations of bigotry in a public official should be
something that's self evident, once the relevant proof has been offered.
It's also immediately relevant to everyone who is a US citizen. If this guy
really is a flaming bigot and is in a nationally prominent public office, we
should be calling for his resignation. There shouldn't be any question
about that.

I'm only speaking, of course, from the point of view of the bland civic
morality that passes around US society as our ethical lingua franca. It
seems like the easiest middle ground to establish in a discussion like this.

Anyway, I know some evidence about Ashcroft is out there. I've heard the
stories. I think there's one about a judge in a state he used to govern.
And another about a study conducted of the US judicial system that concluded
there's no racism in it. I'm pretty sure you have too...just a little bit
of web browsing should pull up the news articles. I'm curious why you don't
bother. Very little effort.

Jim

Omlor@aol.com <mailto:Omlor@aol.com> wrote:

Luke writes:

"...if you're going to call a person "sleazy" and a "bigot," you'd better
damn well prove it..."

But I have faith.

Man, you call someone the only begotten son of an invisible god and you
don't have to prove any of it. But you call them a sleazy sheep-fucker and
suddenly faith isn't good enough.

Oh, well...

--John (on the road somewhere in Central Florida)

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Thu Aug 7 19:43:36 2003