Newsgroups: alt.slack

Subject: Re: Wow

From: (Lou Duchez)

Date: 20 Nov 1997 20:19:25 GMT


In <651jqo$> RevLurch <ManFromGlad@WhiteIsAllright> wrote:

> (Lou Duchez) wrote:

> >I'm still amazed that you're all so mad at me for simply stating a very

> >simple truth -- that confessing to crimes generally attracts cops like

> >flies on shit -- when any one of you could have pointed this out to Tarla

> >long ago and saved her ass.


> Your notion that Tarla got busted because she talked about pot on the

> net apparently has no basis in fact, at least not that I've seen, and

> you keep yammering on and repeating it, not because you wish to make

> some sort of point, but because you are angry at Tarla and want to

> sieze any and every opportunity to take a shot at her. You aren't

> fooling anybody Lou, and you are coming off very badly yourself.


Well that's one way to look at it. But it's awfully coincidental that,

after years of doing pot, she gets busted only after a medium has opened

up to allow her to publicize it more broadly than ever, doesn't it? Would

you talk openly about pot in a Dunkin Donuts if cops could walk in at any

moment? Wouldn't that be incredibly dumb behavior? So why is it not

mind-bendingly asinine on the Internet, where you can't even SEE the cops?


The recipe for a drug bust is: you need a police force that is known to

stop at nothing to nail offenders, and you need them to decide on a

target. Now it's relatively tough to do anything about the first part.

But how about the second?


Tarla *does* have a careless streak as this stuff goes. I think there's

probably a reason why a box of marijuana parts was sent to her house and

not mine, and it probably has something to do with her own behavior. I

really don't think it's coincidence, Lurch.


> As

> Meg said (sorta) this sort of plainly obvious petty vindictiveness

> doesn't square well with the big-hearted, altruistic, morally

> high-minded textbook new deal liberal crusader phony-baloney persona

> you spent so much time and effort constructing online. Well, the only

> real casualty of all this nonsense was what little credibility that

> image might have afforded you in the minds of the easily duped.


You're right, there are people who think I'm a meanie now. And you're

right, my personal dislike for Tarla has a lot with why I said anything at

all. Be that as it may: I don't think I said anything that was untrue.

So I'm left to believe that you just don't like the truths I am speaking.

The fact that you're so pissed off about it a good three weeks after I

brought it up, tells me that you can't dismiss it as easily as you'd like.


And you're right, I *do* have a liberal crusader streak in me. There are

lots of people who, THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, are screwed over by

society. I think they are worth helping. I have considerably less time

to grieve over those who make their own trouble. Perhaps the best I can

do for them is point out that they make their own trouble. But then

their lickspittle friends will act like I'm making it all up.


> >Maybe I have this whole "responsibility to society" thing wrong

> >too, where you try to stand up to at least one thing you don't like about

> >the Con.


> And how does this transparent one-man Tarla-needling campaign fit into

> that high-minded admonition?


Um, as a reminder to the masses that, if they really think the Con is so

nasty, then they oughtta DO something about it. Change a pot law if it

makes you feel so bad, or at least try. It's a hell of a lot more likely

to succeed than whining about the nasty ol' Con on a newsgroup.


Hey Lurch ... if I'm such a bad guy for being a "one-man Tarla-needling

campaign", was she a bad guy for being a "one-man Lou-needling campaign"

for months? Uh-huh, just what I thought.


> Do as you say and not as you do, Lou. Get

> off of it for once, and get back to whining about how the goverment is

> not pouring enough money down a rathole to help losers and bitching

> about the rich bastards and corporate irresponsibility and mailing off

> part of your barbeque sauce budget to buy wigs for South American

> peasant girls that have to sell their hair for wigs, etc., etc.


Now that hurts. And it reinforces my theory that alt.slack folks are

more interested in needling a person for trying to DO something about the

Con, than actually doing.


> >Maybe the most important thing really is to be mildly funny in

> >the face of life-destroying evils. Really, the Con *will* go away if you

> >just ignore the hard choices it forces you to make. And shame on me for

> >acting like the Con is as real as tobacco or SWAT teams or hunger in the

> >world's richest country.


> Oh, it's real all right, but you might as well waste your life trying

> to derail a freight train with a broomstick as alter the direction the

> CON has us heading. The window of opportunity has long since passed.


Untrue. It's not anything any one of us can fix all by his lonesome ...

but if enough of you oh-so-smart folks got on it, who knows what you

could accomplish? Judo, man. Find points where you CAN have some

effect, without playing "bug vs. windshield".


> It has entirely too much inertia now.


Who? The Con, or you?


> I'm through with this Lou. Respond if you want. I won't.


I bet I can piss you off into responding again ... just by saying what I

believe to be true, and what you don't want to believe to be true.



Wins again,