Amarcy D. Berry wrote:
AB) Saying someone lied is not a good thing, no matter how excellent the
arguments advanced. (AB
So we're not allowed to say "X lied" even if it is demonstrably true? Can
you make a list of all the other kinds of demonstrably true statements that
we're not allowed to utter on lpsf-discuss? 
AB) My response to my colleague this morning was the suggestion to create a
new, private list. Then posters would have a choice between styles. (AB
Put me down for the no-lies-and-no-serial-distortions style. 
Mike Denny wrote:
MD) Brian H gloats more than I'd like and would recommend that he review
that (MD
Does pointing out that an argument is unrebutted or already rebutted count
as "gloating"? Please quote me the most egregious example of me "gloating"
that you can find or remember. I'd love to compare it to what Mr. Miller
wrote to me on the third day in his life that he ever addressed a message to
me: "Hopefully, this spanking will prevent you from indulging in such
childishness in the future." In the five weeks since then I've apparently
gone from spanked child to what he now calls "bully". (Does simply
reporting this count as "gloating"?)
Starchild wrote:
SC) Annoyingly argumentative yes, but not uncivil. If annoyingly
argumentative is out, we can hardly in fairness ban Brian Holtz without
banning Brian Miller, who has matched him tit-for-tat on that score. (SC
You too should feel free to nominate anything I've said that approaches
Miller's "spanking" remark.
Brian Miller wrote:
BM) as Rob pointed out earlier, the LRC language on marriage, adoption, etc.
in 2 of the 3 "alternate" platforms is completely deleted, and in the other
one, is watered down so it largely mirrors the Democratic Party's platform
proposals. (BM
Here is all that I see the 2004 Democrat platform say about gay rights or
marriage -- starting on page 41(!) of a 43-page document:
D) We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our
nation and seek equal
responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our
country, marriage has been defined at
the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be
defined there. [...] We will enact the bipartisan legislation barring
workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation. We are committed to
equal treatment of all service members and believe all patriotic Americans
should be allowed to serve our country without discrimination, persecution,
or violence.(D
Here is what the ~4 pages of draft platforms on the LRC site say:
* "Leave marriage decisions to loving couples and their faiths."
* "We favor the freedom of all adults to engage in any consensual
amorous or reproductive behavior or relationship that does not violate the
rights of others."
* "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual
practices and personal relationships."
* "Government should not deny, abridge or enhance any individual's
rights at the expense of other people's rights based on sex, wealth, race,
color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or
sexual orientation."
And here is what I've already told you my proposed GH draft adds: "Sexuality
or gender should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of
individuals by government, such as in marriage, adoption, immigration, or
military service."
I don't know which is funnier: that you still echo an assertion by Rob that
he no longer defends as accurate, or that the Democrat platform you invoked
out of ignorance echoes a position of Ron Paul that you have bitterly
denounced.
BM) the LRC has done nothing -- literally nothing -- to reach out to the
Outright board to get feedback on this. (BM
No, I've only discussed "this" extensively on PlatCom with the Outright
national Chair, and incorporated his feedback into my latest draft several
weeks ago. I then twice sent that language to the Outrights Yahoo group for
comment, and haven't got any substantive feedback that originated there.
I'd already told you this before, but you still made your "literally
nothing" statement above. Typical.
And if you protest that I am only one board member of the LRC, then I'll
note that AFAIK the LRC has done nothing to "reach out" to gun rights
advocates, tax protesters, free-speech advocates, pro-lifers, pro-choicers,
prostitution rights advocates, gambling rights advocates, informed-jury
advocates, smokers' advocates, eminent domain activists, environmentalists,
gold bugs, home schoolers, etc. We in the LRC are generalists who want to
slim the Platform down from a bloated dumping ground of special-interest
laundry lists into a clear and ringing declaration of the timeless
principles that unite libertarians. You can disagree with us whether that's
a wise strategy for the LP, but you don't get to pretend that it means we
hold some animus or disrespect toward your group or any of the others I
mentioned. It's just not true, and it's simply not fair for you to claim
otherwise.
BM) we need a platform that is unambiguous in its support for equality under
the law. The LRC platforms -- in all their incarnations -- don't do that.
(BM
You're speaking from willfull ignorance. I told you three days ago that my
proposal for the final GH draft has for weeks said: "Sexuality or gender
should have no discriminatory impact on the treatment of individuals by
government, such as in marriage, adoption, immigration, or military
service." You are on notice that if you ever repeat your "all their
incarnations" statement above, I will declare it a lie. (Does that make me
a "bully"?)
BM) Americans who lean Libertarian don't want a "sorta-free" party with
lower taxes and a slower-growing Homeland Security apparatus and a
diminished set of military bases abroad and a
kinda-sorta-wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-the-gays-just-shut-up-for-a-change
platform. (BM
This is scurrilous and shameful disinformation. I DEFY you to find a single
member of the LP -- even Rob Power! -- who is willing to publicly say: "I
just read http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Greatest_Hits_Draft_Platform
and it can fairly be described as a sorta-free lower taxes and a
slower-growing Homeland Security apparatus and a diminished set of military
bases abroad and a
kinda-sorta-wouldn't-it-be-nice-if-the-gays-just-shut-up-for-a-change
platform." Have you no shame, sir?