Debate on IP, 1983: Wendy McElroy vs. J. Neil Schulman


Greybird

Recommended Posts

Wendy McElroy and J. Neil Schulman extensively debated the origins, justifications, and propriety of "intellectual property" in a dual speaking appearance in Los Angeles in 1983.

It was moderated by author Victor Koman, who has just uncovered his recording of that occasion, and that has been made available as a streamable and downloadable podcast (39.1 MB, 113 minutes) by the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

<iframe src="http://mises.org/Services/MediaEmbed.aspx?MediaId=6486" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" style="width:360px; height:36px"></iframe>

Stephan Kinsella provides extensive background to the debate events and related intellectual ferment, which in turn influenced his and many others' thinking on IP, in a Mises Daily article posted today.

That article includes a brief framing of past contributors to the IP debate, from the 19th Century individualist anarchists to Rothbard to Rand to Samuel Edward Konkin III, as well as notes setting the context, and correspondence with McElroy.

... I drop this provocative and intriguing red meat (as to both the debate and the participants) into the eColosseum, and I am standing back. Run with the evisceration, to whatever degree you're inclined.

Could you all, though, make an attempt to keep the carnage focused somewhat on the dueling arguments about IP? Rather than on the personal deficiencies or strengths of those involved?

At least for the first hundred posts or so, before the more or less inevitable thread-drift into sniping and character dissection? {cynical sigh}

The two participants as they are today —

McElroySchulman.jpg

Edited by Greybird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have never "run with the evisceration" in my life, and I don't plan to start now.

With that said, I don't care for JMS' black beatnik cap, and sense in Ms. McElroy's picture profound angst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never "run with the evisceration" in my life, and I don't plan to start now.

With that said, I don't care for JMS' black beatnik cap, and sense in Ms. McElroy's picture profound angst.

J. Neil looks the jollier, for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you all, though, make an attempt to keep the carnage focused somewhat on the dueling arguments about IP? Rather than on the personal deficiencies or strengths of those involved?

Nope. Here is the reply that I posted earlier today on LL2:

A friend sent me this link a few hours ago. I replied as follows:

I read this article earlier today, after it showed up on LL2. It is a fairly interesting article, especially considering the fact that it was written by someone with butt-fuzz for brains [i.e., Kinsella].

I had not realized that Wendy was such a seminal figure in the modern debate on IP, having previously labored under the delusion that she took almost all of her arguments from B. Tucker and others in his circle. In any case, having recently reread her claim that we worked together closely on everything from 1975 to 1985, to the extent that we virtually co-authored everything, I hereby claim 50 percent credit for any original idea that might have accidentally collided with Wendy's brain during those ten years. In other words, I "co-wrote" any articles on IP that might have influenced butt-fuzz-for-brains, so he should acknowledge me as well.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tsk tsk George! She and her friends only have nice things to say about you.

For the record: Although I helped Wendy with almost all of her early articles and talks for the first six or so years that we lived together, by 1983 she was writing stuff entirely on her own. We talked a lot about intellectual property over the years, but, unlike Wendy, I don't claim "co-authorship" for any products that may have resulted from the casual conversations that intellectuals who live together normally have. I had nothing to do with her talk. In fact, I don't think I even read it prior to the debate itself. I thought she did a fine job at the time.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I seem grumpy about the Kinsella article, I am, and here is part of the reason. Kinsella quotes Wendy's "Retrospective," an article in which Wendy has conveniently and drastically understated my role in the anti-LP movement in the mid-1970s. I cannot cover all of her misrepresentations here. Instead, I will present some documentary background and then explain its significance in subsequent posts.

Let's begin with with Wendy's highly selective account, as quoted by Kinsella:

McElroy's prefatory remarks to her recent Libertarian Papers article "Contra Copyright, Again" elaborate on this history. As she wrote there, in a "Retrospective,"

Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man, then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast." Los Angeles in the early '80s was like that for libertarians. It brimmed over with supper clubs, student groups, small magazines, debates and conferences. Given the concentration of high-quality scholars and activists in the area, the explosion of activity was inevitable. Although the new-born Libertarian Party was extremely active, the circles in which I ran were generally anti-political or apathetic about electoral politics. They included the cadre gathered around Robert LeFevre, a sprinkling of Objectivists (mostly admirers of Nathaniel Branden), a few Galambosians, and as many Rothbardians as I could meet. And, then, Carl Watner, George H. Smith and I established our own unique circle by creating The Voluntaryist newsletter and re-introducing the term Voluntaryist back into the libertarian mainstream. A libertarian used book store named Lysander's Books that I co-owned became the center of Voluntaryism.

To hear Wendy tell the story, I was one among many libertarians in the early to mid-1970s who was "generally anti-political or apathetic about electoral politics." In fact, I was the foremost and most outspoken critic of the LP long before I even met Sam Konkin in 1975. Moroever, I, and I alone, came up with the idea for "The Voluntaryist," including the name.

I will fill in details later. For now, I will quote an account, written by Murray Rothbard, of a lecture I gave in 1976 for the Los Angeles Libertarian Supper Club. My talk was printed in full by Sam Konkin in a special supplement to his "New Libertarian Weekly." This talk, which got more laughs than any talk I have ever given, was printed by Sam with a cartoon caricature of me -- fortunately, a flattering one -- but I no longer have a copy of either my talk or Sam's reprint, so I will rest content with Murray's summary, which he wrote four years after the fact:

"The Clark Campaign: Never Again (Murray Rothbard, Libertarian Forum, Sept.-Dec. 1980). From page 8. See:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fjournals%2Flf%2F1980%2F1980_09-12.pdf&rct=j&q=george%20h.%20smith%201984%20victory%20speech&ei=WvokTrLvKoivsAK3j83NCw&usg=AFQjCNFMMTcgVJ1dvZ_OQyANi4rArMJxAg

19. George Smith's Prophetic Satire

George H. Smith, a brilliant young philosopher and a leader of the anti-party libertarians, wrote a satire during the 1976 campaign that was published by anti-party leader Sam Konkin. (George H. Smith, "Victory Speech of the Libertarian Party President-Elect, 1984" New Libertarian Weekly Supplement (October 3 1, 1976, pp. 3ff.) As a pro-party person, I have to admit that Smith's projected "Victory Speech" is a chilling and dazzlingly prophetic portrayal of the Clark campaign. It deserves quoting at length. The victorious LP President is making his 1984 victory speech. He begins his sellout thus:

"I appear before you this evening to tell you of my vision for this country and to unfold my plan for liberty. . . But let us not forget that we live in the real world. We live in a world of brute facts that cares nothing for our ideals, we must face the fact that the devastation caused by political meddling has created an extremely complicated situation. Many of our citizens depend entirely on government jobs and handouts. As much as we desire liberty, we cannot sacrifice these innocent people in a blind repeal of laws."

The President goes on to say that the coercive laws can only be whittled away gradually.

". . . there are those who criticize our gradualism. Some of our former comrades who, before the purge of 1980, also referred to themselves as 'libertarians', continue vociferously to campaign for the immediate and total repeal of all unjust Iaws. In upholding gradual repeal, they say, the Party must necessarily defend and enforce those unjust laws that remain. This is true. . . So many people have become dependent on government money and services, that to abolish them outright would clearly lead to disorder, rioting, and starvation. The good of society requires that such laws be phased out in increments, step by step, while we prepare the country for freedom. This is the wisdom of gradualism.

"But still we are assailed by reckless visionaries who scream for the immediate abolition of taxation - the root, they say, of most government evil. Now, taxation is wrong, of course; but to repeal all taxation would lead to the collapse of national defense, police services, welfare, and many other essential services. Thousands, perhaps millions, would die. We are unwilling to sacrifice lives to the tyranny of false freedom, in a country where people cannot as yet handle their freedom in a proper manner.

"Indeed, it was our policy of gradualism that led to our massive support by the American people."

Smith's "President" then goes on to point out how various groups of voters were convinced to vote Libertarian: because they were told that all of their privileges: Social Security; welfare; union privileges; taxi monopolies; victimless crime law enforcement; whatever, that all of these would "be chiseled away in painless steps". To abolish such privileges would be "only a long-term objective."

The rest of the satire is even more chilling, for then the "President" goes on to say that any libertarian purists who insist on disobeying these unjust laws or in not paying taxes must be cracked down on by the "libertarian" government; otherwise that government would be discredited in the eyes of the public. The "President" urges the libertarians in his audience: "Become a model law abiding citizen for the sake of gradualism, even if you personally disagree with many of the current laws. Above all do not cheat on your taxes. Remember that your tax dollars will now go for the cause of freedom . . ."

We are going to have to have a mighty and thoroughgoing transformation of the Libertarian Party if we are going to demonstrate that George Smith and his, fellow anti-party libertarians were not right in their qualms about Libertarian political action. So far, their warnings have been all too correct.

That Wendy plagiarized a 200-page manuscript by me was bad enough. I will be damned if I let her get away with a fictional account of the libertarian movement in Southern California during the 1970s and early 1980s.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I seem grumpy about the Kinsella article, I am, and here is part of the reason. Kinsella quotes Wendy's "Retrospective," an article in which Wendy has conveniently and drastically understated my role in the anti-LP movement in the mid-1970s. I cannot cover all of her misrepresentations here. Instead, I will present some documentary background and then explain its significance in a subsequent post.

Let's begin with with Wendy's highly selective account, as quoted by Kinsella:

...And, then, Carl Watner, George H. Smith and I established our own unique circle by creating The Voluntaryist newsletter and re-introducing the term Voluntaryist back into the libertarian mainstream. A libertarian used book store named Lysander's Books that I co-owned became the center of Voluntaryism.

This is a good example of how Wendy distorts history in order to exaggerate her own importance, even in regard to insignificant matters. Does it ultimately matter who came up with "Voluntaryist" as the name for a libertarian periodical that few libertarians have read or ever will read? Or does it ultimately matter who introduced the label "voluntaryism" into the modern movement? No, not really, but here is the true story that you will never hear from Wendy.

The first issue of The Voluntaryist appeared in October, 1982. Not coincidentally, earlier in 1982 an anthology was published by Ballinger titled The Public School Monopoly; A Criticial Analysis of Education and the State in American Society , edited by Robert B. Everhart. Chapter 3 of this book (pp. 109-44) is an article written by me, "Nineteenth-Century Opponents of State Education: Prophets of Modern Revisionism."

I researched this highly original article -- probably the most important historical article I will ever write -- for a solid year, mainly by spending countless hours in the UCLA Research Library, and I meticulously documented my research with 133 detailed endnotes, most of which cite 19th century journals, pamphlets, and books that few historians, including specialists in the history of education, knew anything about.

It was while researching this article that I encountered the terms "voluntaryists" and "voluntaryism," for these were the terms used by the British opponents of state education during the mid-19th century. These terms appear many times in my 1982 article, e.g.:

On my use of the term "voluntaryism," see some of the references here:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=khElTvfrJKeLsgLQnLCIDA&ct=result&id=y-SeAAAAMAAJ&dq=the+public+school+monopoly&q=voluntaryism

On my use of the term "voluntaryists, see some of the references here:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=khElTvfrJKeLsgLQnLCIDA&ct=result&id=y-SeAAAAMAAJ&dq=the+public+school+monopoly&q=voluntaryists

When I thought of the idea of starting a non-political libertarian newsletter, one that would explore alternative strategies, I naturally suggested the title "The Voluntaryist," and I suggested that we use the label "voluntaryism," given that I had just finished and published an article in which those labels played prominent roles. Why? Well, for the simple reason that the terms were not already in use, and they had something of a libertarian pedigree. Contrary to Wendy's dumb assertion, however, the terms were never part of the "libertarian mainstream."

As I said before, this stuff is pretty minor -- and is precisely because it is so minor that Wendy's fuzzy and deceptive account is so petty. Why didn't she simply say that I suggested the labels "voluntaryism" and "voluntaryist," and that she and Carl agreed? But, no....Wendy had to steal even a meagar morsel of fame, giving herself credit for "re-introducing the term Voluntaryist back into the libertarian mainstream."

What a sleazebucket this woman is.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...And, then, Carl Watner, George H. Smith and I established our own unique circle by creating The Voluntaryist newsletter and re-introducing the term Voluntaryist back into the libertarian mainstream. A libertarian used book store named Lysander's Books that I co-owned became the center of Voluntaryism.

One more thing: Wendy was indeed a co-owner of Lysander's Books, and she deserves partial credit for its success -- but Lysander's was never the "center of Voluntaryism," or of anything else, except a highly profitable business. No meetings were ever held in the store, nor was any event, Voluntaryist or otherwise, ever sponsored under its name.

Any historian, present or future, who relies on the accounts of Wendy McElroy deserves whatever he or she gets. Wendy is out to aggrandize herself in whatever way she can, however trivial, and that's all that is going on here.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have, by now, known better than to make any reasonable request for some initial period of focused, on-topic discussion. Why bother making it, when all that seems to be in demand is more character sniping?

Spill it into every thread, then — I don't care any more. When someone gets on the local, official, implicit bête noire list, rational discussion of his or her ideas (or even rhetorical skills) apparently is permanently jettisoned.

That's hardly unique to this Objectivist venue, of course. It's long been true at pretty much all of them, nearly all the time, only varying in the intensity of the firefights and the shifting of targets.

The more that admirers of Rand disclaim how any implicit authoritarian tone may have been encouraged by her own and her inner circle's original behavior (on and off the page), the more I have to wonder at how some end up affirming it. Whether that's their conscious intention or — as I'm sure is true here — not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have, by now, known better than to make any reasonable request for some initial period of focused, on-topic discussion. Why bother making it, when all that seems to be in demand is more character sniping?

Spill it into every thread, then — I don't care any more. When someone gets on the local, official, implicit bête noire list, rational discussion of his or her ideas (or even rhetorical skills) apparently is permanently jettisoned.

That's hardly unique to this Objectivist venue, of course. It's long been true at pretty much all of them, nearly all the time, only varying in the intensity of the firefights and the shifting of targets.

The more that admirers of Rand disclaim how any implicit authoritarian tone may have been encouraged by her own and her inner circle's original behavior (on and off the page), the more I have to wonder at how some end up affirming it. Whether that's their conscious intention or — as I'm sure is true here — not.

For fuck's sake, man--do you think you are going to persuade Ghs into editing to your taste? Now, that would be a gruesome day. His replies to your very useful topic are exactly as they should be, if not a little more.

Save yourself now, before it is too late. Don't you see the signs, brother? It's The Transformation. The Changin'. It comes on subtle, you know . . .mild urges to sanitize, correct, enforce what you feel is "decorum." Before long, you are in Bat Country--you have become Phil Coates. Bete noire list my sorry hide. How dare you speak frog. And invoked as a hot link, even! Was that an effort to educate the groundlings? Minka. I bet you had to look that up to be sure, didn't you? A lot of trouble to get an accent mark.

Need I remind you of how and what you will become, step by step? Behold your future:

phil.jpg Originally.

Phil2.gifEarly molecular rearranging takes place.

philcrop.jpgThe Transformation.

BruceGassmannow.jpg Temporary atomic flux.

lou.jpg The Pale, Hideous Aftermath.

Loosen up, Moneypenny: Un-cradle the phone, undo that tight bun in your hair, and hike your leg up over yonder mahogany desk. This is what living feels like.

rde

Time for the garlic necklace.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have, by now, known better than to make any reasonable request for some initial period of focused, on-topic discussion. Why bother making it, when all that seems to be in demand is more character sniping?

Spill it into every thread, then — I don't care any more. When someone gets on the local, official, implicit bête noire list, rational discussion of his or her ideas (or even rhetorical skills) apparently is permanently jettisoned.

That's hardly unique to this Objectivist venue, of course. It's long been true at pretty much all of them, nearly all the time, only varying in the intensity of the firefights and the shifting of targets.

The more that admirers of Rand disclaim how any implicit authoritarian tone may have been encouraged by her own and her inner circle's original behavior (on and off the page), the more I have to wonder at how some end up affirming it. Whether that's their conscious intention or — as I'm sure is true here — not.

You characterized your own headline post as "red meat." You also posted a link to Stephan Kinsella's article, one that supposedly provides "extensive background to the debate events and related intellectual ferment, which in turn influenced his and many others' thinking on IP, in a Mises Daily article posted today."

Much of that background is fictional, as I have pointed out. And pointing this out does not amount to "character sniping." I was intimately involved with those events -- far more than Wendy was in most cases -- and if I catch her lying again and again, I will call attention to her lies, again and again.

Why you believe anything at this point that Wendy might say in a "Retrospective" mystifies the fuck out me. The woman is an inveterate liar, a person who will manufacture "facts" out of thin air, if she thinks they will enhance her own reputation. Or haven't you figured this part out yet?

Moreover, if you wish to start a discussion of IP and its background in the modern movement, do you really think you will achieve this goal by posting a verbal debate that runs nearly two hours, and which few people will listen to in its entirety? There is a ton of written material out there, if that was your purpose.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have, by now, known better than to make any reasonable request for some initial period of focused, on-topic discussion. Why bother making it, when all that seems to be in demand is more character sniping?

Spill it into every thread, then — I don't care any more. When someone gets on the local, official, implicit bête noire list, rational discussion of his or her ideas (or even rhetorical skills) apparently is permanently jettisoned.

That's hardly unique to this Objectivist venue, of course. It's long been true at pretty much all of them, nearly all the time, only varying in the intensity of the firefights and the shifting of targets.

The more that admirers of Rand disclaim how any implicit authoritarian tone may have been encouraged by her own and her inner circle's original behavior (on and off the page), the more I have to wonder at how some end up affirming it. Whether that's their conscious intention or — as I'm sure is true here — not.

You characterized your own headline post as "red meat." You also posted a link to Stephan Kinsella's article, one that supposedly provides "extensive background to the debate events and related intellectual ferment, which in turn influenced his and many others' thinking on IP, in a Mises Daily article posted today."

Much of that background is fictional, as I have pointed out. And pointing this out does not amount to "character sniping." I was intimately involved with those events -- far more than Wendy was in most cases -- and if I catch her lying again and again, I will call attention to her lies, again and again.

Why you believe anything at this point that Wendy might say in a "Retrospective" mystifies the fuck out me. The woman is an inveterate liar, a person who will manufacture "facts" out of thin air, if she thinks they will enhance her own reputation. Of haven't you figured this part out yet?

Moreover, if you wish to start a discussion of IP and its background in the modern movement, do you really think you will achieve this goal by posting a verbal debate that runs nearly two hours, and which few people will listen to in its entirely? There is a ton of written material out there, if that was your purpose.

Ghs

He's a one trick pony, George. He de-cloaks, scolds everyone, complains in a most bitterly manner, then re-cloaks. A basic hit-and-run artist, without the striking power. For what it is worth I am usually not this hard on anyone but his persistence, if nothing else, is enough to warrant it. He hates it here, but not enough to not be here.

Since he chose to psychologize, I guess that opens a door. The reason he does the bete noire thingy is because he feels, on some level or another, that he has been, uh, "betty-nwahed," and he has. People get sick of his endless complaining. It smells like old man farts, or the inside of a coffin, or something along that line. It's a given, at this point. Some form of weak, moral outrage.

But at least he put the thing up. As to his motivation(s), I was wondering about that myself.

r

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have, by now, known better than to make any reasonable request for some initial period of focused, on-topic discussion. Why bother making it, when all that seems to be in demand is more character sniping?

Spill it into every thread, then — I don't care any more. When someone gets on the local, official, implicit bête noire list, rational discussion of his or her ideas (or even rhetorical skills) apparently is permanently jettisoned.

That's hardly unique to this Objectivist venue, of course. It's long been true at pretty much all of them, nearly all the time, only varying in the intensity of the firefights and the shifting of targets.

The more that admirers of Rand disclaim how any implicit authoritarian tone may have been encouraged by her own and her inner circle's original behavior (on and off the page), the more I have to wonder at how some end up affirming it. Whether that's their conscious intention or — as I'm sure is true here — not.

For fuck's sake, man--do you think you are going to persuade Ghs into editing to your taste? Now, that would be a gruesome day. His replies to your very useful topic are exactly as they should be, if not a little more.

Save yourself now, before it is too late. Don't you see the signs, brother? It's The Transformation. The Changin'. It comes on subtle, you know . . .mild urges to sanitize, correct, enforce what you feel is "decorum." Before long, you are in Bat Country--you have become Phil Coates. Bete noire list my sorry hide. How dare you speak frog. And invoked as a hot link, even! Was that an effort to educate the groundlings? Minka. I bet you had to look that up to be sure, didn't you? A lot of trouble to get an accent mark.

Need I remind you of how and what you will become, step by step? Behold your future:

phil.jpg Originally.

Phil2.gifEarly molecular rearranging takes place.

philcrop.jpgThe Transformation.

BruceGassmannow.jpg Temporary atomic flux.

lou.jpg The Pale, Hideous Aftermath.

Loosen up, Moneypenny: Un-cradle the phone, undo that tight bun in your hair, and hike your leg up over yonder mahogany desk. This is what living feels like.

rde

Time for the garlic necklace.

The dude with the squeeze-box on his chest is pretty hilarious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should have, by now, known better than to make any reasonable request for some initial period of focused, on-topic discussion. Why bother making it, when all that seems to be in demand is more character sniping?

Spill it into every thread, then — I don't care any more. When someone gets on the local, official, implicit bête noire list, rational discussion of his or her ideas (or even rhetorical skills) apparently is permanently jettisoned.

That's hardly unique to this Objectivist venue, of course. It's long been true at pretty much all of them, nearly all the time, only varying in the intensity of the firefights and the shifting of targets.

The more that admirers of Rand disclaim how any implicit authoritarian tone may have been encouraged by her own and her inner circle's original behavior (on and off the page), the more I have to wonder at how some end up affirming it. Whether that's their conscious intention or — as I'm sure is true here — not.

It must be hard to type with one's hands nailed to the cross.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It must be hard to type with one's hands nailed to the cross"

Much less play decent accordion. If there is such a thing.

I was going to do a trivia contest on the pix, but the hijacking levels are already peaking to a dangerous state. So . . .

Obviously, the first three are Phil (or The Artist Formerly Known As Phil)--these reside in the Phil Shrine here at OL, which, by the way, seems to be suffering from a severe attendance problem, despite lots of bells, whistles, dancing monkeys, and even a Hong Kong funeral shot.

The accordion dude (and, God help you, you have to have your finger on the pulse of the accordion world for this sort of nonsense) is none other than Bruce Gassman :

Bruce Gassman Web Site

No one plays "Star Wars" quite like Bruce does.

Then, the finally rendered Creature is Lou Catell, appearing in a one-time-only role in "Frankenstein Meets The Space Monster." Art at its finest. Oh, eff it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9It2mr5hP8

It all seemed appropriate, given the curmudgeon-ness.

OK back to it, folks. I got nothin' for awhile.

rde

In honor of Phil, I am skipping the Quote Function.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve's passive-aggressive behavior is only tiresome now. I prefer Phil jumping in with both feet, elbows swinging wildly and the irony of his taking the problem he was complaining about with him when he left.

--Brant

Yeah, I was thinking on that. He was better. Phil would, from time to time, resurface and he would do some beautiful things. Well, maybe not Beauty, but awfully damn good. You could see his nature.

You know you're fucked when you talk about missing Phil. That is the pregnant fact of it, methinks. Jeez.

rde

Waiting for the Curmudgeon or Someone Like Him

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve's passive-aggressive behavior is only tiresome now. I prefer Phil jumping in with both feet, elbows swinging wildly and the irony of his taking the problem he was complaining about with him when he left.

--Brant

Yeah, I was thinking on that. He was better. Phil would, from time to time, resurface and he would do some beautiful things. Well, maybe not Beauty, but awfully damn good. You could see his nature.

You know you're fucked when you talk about missing Phil. That is the pregnant fact of it, methinks. Jeez.

rde

Waiting for the Curmudgeon or Someone Like Him

Phil still haunts these pages. I continue to be amazed that nobody has outed him yet.

Edited by PDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I drop this provocative and intriguing red meat (as to both the debate and the participants) into the eColosseum, and I am standing back. Run with the evisceration, to whatever degree you're inclined.

Why stand back? I'm sure no one here has any interest in your whining about what you imagine to be others' "character snipings," or in heeding your Randian (not to mention Coatesian) authoritarian tone, but some of us might be interested in hearing your analysis of the materials that you linked to and why you found them worthy of being posted.

Got anything other than taunting and scolding?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil still haunts these pages. I continue to be amazed that nobody has outed him yet.

That's just the inertia in our own minds from the strength of his former presence.

--Brant

I'd say the stench of his former presence.

J

Folks:

PDS is correct. He definitely has been here in the last five (5) days to be exact...Jul 17 2011 10:12 PM.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now