Newsgroups: alt.slack

Subject: Re: The Repercussions of Being Accused

From: carey@humboldt1.(sp)om (I need help.)

Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 16:15:17 GMT

On Sat, 01 Nov 1997 11:10:06 -0500, bbombere <bbombere@erols.com>

wrote:

A bunch of people said some stuff like this:

>> ->

>> ->Certainly, in that there are plenty of people out there who simply beleive

>> ->everything they're told. You betcha.

>> ->

>>

>> Listening to some "Reefer Madness"-style Senate speechifying

>> made me wonder if they believe what they're SAYING. Wonderful

>> choice: stupid or dishonest.

>

>

>I, too, once posed this question!

>

>The answer is both, and malicious into the bargain.

 

 

Why ask 'why'?

 

I've given up trying to figure out what's going on inside the heads of

these and other members of the Con. Moronic, mendacious, malicious or

misguided... it's meaningless. As generalizing generally is.

 

Especially since the real answer is probably a complicated mess.

 

The best thing to do is to let 'em think what they want, say what they

want and have whatever reasons they want for what they think say and

do. Meanwhile, we take their own stick and beat them with it.

 

In other words, let's take over the planet and make them bust rock.

 

http://www.humboldt1.com/~carey/

keywords to flub up lamers: limbaugh clinton libertarian free market lysander spooner

ayn rand outcompete censorship militia scientology jim carrey ivan stang subgenius iguanas

motorcycle harley davidson poodles cocaine springstein smashing pumpkins ringo

urine nootropics poop general electric peter max social security privacy encryption

attatch:/dictionary.txt