moderation

Brian Miller wrote:

BM) If individuals in moderation wish to ban me from the list for my
comments -- or if I'm asked to leave the list by moderators because they
don't believe I contribute to its substance -- I will happily do so without
copying 65 different (and disinterested [sic]) lists, complaining of the
injustice of the decision. (BM

Re: "disinterested", we read in the Compact OED: "There is a difference
between disinterested and uninterested. Disinterested primarily means
‘impartial’, while uninterested means ‘not interested’." Most usage
authorities still press this distinction, but widespread unlettered usage
such as the above makes this a losing battle. Still, thanks for the
hilarious irony, as ca-liberty is indeed impartial to lpsf-discuss's
conundrum that its unwillingness to socially sanction your serial
distortions and habitual mendacity has led it to endure my systematic
diagnoses of same. And thanks for compounding the irony by posting to
ca-liberty last night a lengthy rant lecturing me about my obligations as an
LPCA leader, thus confirming the wisdom of my choice of that forum for my
complaint.

Your puerile hyperbole about "65" lists was equally funny but in a much
lower-brow way. Last time I checked, ca-liberty was precisely one list. The
only other place my complaint was posted was my own marketliberal
distribution/archive channel for all my public postings -- a list which
obviously is neither uninterested nor disinterested about me being censored.

Still, I don't doubt that you wouldn't "complain about the injustice of" you
being banned from lpsf-discuss, since by now even you must be aware as
anybody else there what sort of reputation you've built for yourself in the
less than four months that you've been posting there.

BM) my commentary regarding the spanking was quite accurate, and fair. (BM

Ah, so I've gone from spanked child to "bully" back to spanked child again.
While you try to make up your mind here, I'll just thank you for reiterating
the comment that I had just cited as proof that I'm more civil than you.

BM) Mr. Holtz has a habit of making unethical claims -- characterizing a
lack of response to his circular logic as "concession" of the argument. (BM

Yet another mendaciously fabricated quote. Here's what the record actually
shows:

[BH Aug 30) I suspect you saw me systematically rebut [on Jul 16] Brian
Miller's similar inaccurate claims against Paul at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca-liberty/message/5070 . (BH]

BM Aug 31) It's been called to my attention that Mr. Holtz has been claiming
my silence (mostly caused by laughter) on this article is actually evidence
that I was cowed by a "systematic rebuttal." (BM

BH Sep 14) Nope, I just said that my response was a "systematic rebuttal",
and offered absolutely no speculation as to why you hadn't replied. It's
interesting that "cowed" is the first explanation that springs to your mind.
(BH

It's a deliberate falsehood to suggest that I used any form of the word
"concede" to characterize your non-response, but I find it again interesting
that you apparently filed your memory of what you did under "C" for
"concession". My subsequent rebuttal stands unanswered at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca-liberty/message/5244 . Among other things,
in that message I caught you blatantly misreading (or ignorant of) the text
of 10 U.S.C. § 654 (Don't Ask Don't Tell), just like on another occasion I
exposed your undefended ignorance
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/12848> of the text of
past and present LP Platforms. On Sep 24 you falsely
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13301> claimed to have
already responded to my message 5244, but then conveniently declined my
challenge to point out where this phantom response may be found. If you ever
unearth it, let us know.

BM) His claims that I, as an Outright officer, had not responded to his
arguments with regard to LGBTQ issues were completely without merit or
ethics, hence my reply. (BM

It's an undisputable and trivially verifiable fact that on Aug 30 you had
not yet ever replied to my Jul 16 message. It's equally indisputable that
as of today (Oct 9), you have not yet ever replied to my subsequent Sep 14
message. Your statement here seems just as much a deliberate falsehood as
your Sep 24 claim to have issued a phantom response, and I don't need to use
the un-stylish L-word for this audience to realize what that makes you.

As for invoking "ethics" while blatantly dissembling about whether you had
responded to my message, well, that's just too easy a target to be worth my
time. The appropriate pithy diagnosis of the irony here is left as an
exercise for the reader. :slight_smile:

BM) If observation of those sorts of comments makes me a bad list member,
I'll happily decamp and let Mr. Holtz monopolize the discussion. (BM

The only monopoly I have here is, alas, on denouncing your distortions and
deliberate falsehoods about me. For every message you post containing them,
I will send out a systematic diagnosing response. You can take that to the
bank. Thus the volume of such diagnosing responses is completely under your
control. While a few people on lpsf-discuss apparently don't like the
"style" of my diagnoses, not a single one of them has ever disputed the
accuracy of a single one of my demonstrations of your false claims. (Doing
so would be a far more effective way of changing my behavior than
complaining about "style", but the latter is apparently easier than the
former.) If correcting falsehoods is out of "style" in San Francisco, then
I'm happy to remain un-stylish, and if that lack of "style" gets me censored
again, I'll again let the wider LPCA know about it -- every time.

Ok, that does. I will be unsubscribing from the
lpsf-discuss list. I don't have time for this back and
forth nonsense.
Francoise

--- Brian Holtz <brian@...> wrote:

Brian Miller wrote:

BM) If individuals in moderation wish to ban me from
the list for my
comments -- or if I'm asked to leave the list by
moderators because they
don't believe I contribute to its substance -- I
will happily do so without
copying 65 different (and disinterested [sic])
lists, complaining of the
injustice of the decision. (BM

Re: "disinterested", we read in the Compact OED:
"There is a difference
between disinterested and uninterested.
Disinterested primarily means
�impartial�, while uninterested means �not
interested�." Most usage
authorities still press this distinction, but
widespread unlettered usage
such as the above makes this a losing battle.
Still, thanks for the
hilarious irony, as ca-liberty is indeed impartial
to lpsf-discuss's
conundrum that its unwillingness to socially
sanction your serial
distortions and habitual mendacity has led it to
endure my systematic
diagnoses of same. And thanks for compounding the
irony by posting to
ca-liberty last night a lengthy rant lecturing me
about my obligations as an
LPCA leader, thus confirming the wisdom of my choice
of that forum for my
complaint.

Your puerile hyperbole about "65" lists was equally
funny but in a much
lower-brow way. Last time I checked, ca-liberty was
precisely one list. The
only other place my complaint was posted was my own
marketliberal
distribution/archive channel for all my public
postings -- a list which
obviously is neither uninterested nor disinterested
about me being censored.

Still, I don't doubt that you wouldn't "complain
about the injustice of" you
being banned from lpsf-discuss, since by now even
you must be aware as
anybody else there what sort of reputation you've
built for yourself in the
less than four months that you've been posting
there.

BM) my commentary regarding the spanking was quite
accurate, and fair. (BM

Ah, so I've gone from spanked child to "bully" back
to spanked child again.
While you try to make up your mind here, I'll just
thank you for reiterating
the comment that I had just cited as proof that I'm
more civil than you.

BM) Mr. Holtz has a habit of making unethical claims
-- characterizing a
lack of response to his circular logic as
"concession" of the argument. (BM

Yet another mendaciously fabricated quote. Here's
what the record actually
shows:

[BH Aug 30) I suspect you saw me systematically
rebut [on Jul 16] Brian
Miller's similar inaccurate claims against Paul at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca-liberty/message/5070

. (BH]

BM Aug 31) It's been called to my attention that Mr.
Holtz has been claiming
my silence (mostly caused by laughter) on this
article is actually evidence
that I was cowed by a "systematic rebuttal." (BM

BH Sep 14) Nope, I just said that my response was a
"systematic rebuttal",
and offered absolutely no speculation as to why you
hadn't replied. It's
interesting that "cowed" is the first explanation
that springs to your mind.
(BH

It's a deliberate falsehood to suggest that I used
any form of the word
"concede" to characterize your non-response, but I
find it again interesting
that you apparently filed your memory of what you
did under "C" for
"concession". My subsequent rebuttal stands
unanswered at

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ca-liberty/message/5244

. Among other things,
in that message I caught you blatantly misreading
(or ignorant of) the text
of 10 U.S.C. � 654 (Don't Ask Don't Tell), just like
on another occasion I
exposed your undefended ignorance

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/12848>

of the text of
past and present LP Platforms. On Sep 24 you
falsely

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpsf-discuss/message/13301>

claimed to have
already responded to my message 5244, but then
conveniently declined my
challenge to point out where this phantom response
may be found. If you ever
unearth it, let us know.

BM) His claims that I, as an Outright officer, had
not responded to his
arguments with regard to LGBTQ issues were
completely without merit or
ethics, hence my reply. (BM

It's an undisputable and trivially verifiable fact
that on Aug 30 you had
not yet ever replied to my Jul 16 message. It's
equally indisputable that
as of today (Oct 9), you have not yet ever replied
to my subsequent Sep 14
message. Your statement here seems just as much a
deliberate falsehood as
your Sep 24 claim to have issued a phantom response,
and I don't need to use
the un-stylish L-word for this audience to realize
what that makes you.

As for invoking "ethics" while blatantly dissembling
about whether you had
responded to my message, well, that's just too easy
a target to be worth my
time. The appropriate pithy diagnosis of the irony
here is left as an
exercise for the reader. :slight_smile:

BM) If observation of those sorts of comments makes
me a bad list member,
I'll happily decamp and let Mr. Holtz monopolize the
discussion. (BM

The only monopoly I have here is, alas, on
denouncing your distortions and
deliberate falsehoods about me. For every message
you post containing them,
I will send out a systematic diagnosing response.
You can take that to the
bank. Thus the volume of such diagnosing responses
is completely under your
control. While a few people on lpsf-discuss
apparently don't like the
"style" of my diagnoses, not a single one of them
has ever disputed the
accuracy of a single one of my demonstrations of
your false claims. (Doing
so would be a far more effective way of changing my
behavior than
complaining about "style", but the latter is
apparently easier than the
former.) If correcting falsehoods is out of "style"
in San Francisco, then
I'm happy to remain un-stylish, and if that lack of
"style" gets me censored
again, I'll again let the wider LPCA know about it
-- every time.

Francoise Fielding
820 Stanyan Street,#5
San Francisco, CA 94117
415-386-8643