Recommended Posts

His first postwar film "Meet John Doe" is perhaps the greatest story of American society ever told.-- but Jimmy Stewart in "It's A Wonderful Life" and "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" are the films people loved best.

Excellent points.

We elect the "heelots" to office and shower compliments and money on the "heelots" created by the Fourth Estate.

Verily, we have no one to blame except our selves.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 443
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

William has a very keen and sound mind and is a very deep thinker. The only thing he could be accused of is being a bit cynical at times but aren't we all?

Adam wrote, “We elect the "heelots" to office . . . “ at which point they turn into Morlocks and oppress the Eloi, according to Marx, then Lenin travels forward in his time machine and becomes an adviser to Vlad the Impaler Putin. The book was written by H.G. Well I Never and the movie was directed by Alfred (For The Birds) Hitchcock and George Pal (not that he was friends with Alfred) and starred my Uncle Rod Taylor and my Auntie Yvette Mimieux. I bet you thought you could stump me, you preevert.

Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper and Colonel Bat Guano.

I never liked Peckinpaw but Spielberg has done some excellent work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is simple fact that big daddy was a con man all his life, that he looted ATM, that he spent trust money wildly and had no intention of going straight after the LFC debacle. That he died in prison after pleading guilty to fraud is an indication that your testimony is fanciful and unconvincing, Wolf. It is no slander that convicted 'Midas' and bound him to prison. It was his own guilty plea.

Willilam,

Let's simplify things by calling him Rex. He operated a lottery. The Feds deemed it wire fraud and arrested his son.

Rex Rogers was a pseudonym/alias for the "Silver King" James Ray Houston. You can call him Midas and you can call him Rex, and I can call him a life-long con man. I do not understand why you would distort the truth about his sixteen year long lottery scam. "He operated a lottery" is simply not correct, and I suppose -- I hope -- you know that. If you don't know how the lottery scam worked, okay, but unless you were part of the father and son business, and unless you witnessed the mailouts and mail collections, the deposits made and the fake 'prizes' issued, you aren't in a credible position.

The fraud was in representation and operation, based on a lie. The scam was to sent out many scores of thousands of letters claiming that the various 'official' shell companies would purchase lottery tickets in bulk. The mark would think she was taking a position of a larger group -- that Houston, Vleisides, and co-fraudsters were actually buying large numbers of tickets to 'cover the winnings' on a statistical basis.

The mailouts were a fraud and a lie.

In reality, all the money went into mailing out more scam letters, paying the fraudsters sixty percent of the money coming in -- and various costs of doing business. The incoming money was never used in the manner promised.

No lottery tickets were purchased whatsoever. Most of the touted lotteries were fictional. No real 'prizes' were awarded according to the stated process, and certainly the fake prize winnings were in zero relation to any actual or claimed lottery holding.

The entire system ran for sixteen years, Wolf. Dirty money from this fraud paid your salary or your 'chief counsel' wages -- and yes, subsidized the LFC Trust.

Do I need to publish here the links and facts I have assembled, or can you simply acknowledge that yes, there was fraud and you didn't, couldn't know at the time in Costa Rica?

Rex took the fall.

I don't know what 'took the fall' means here (you may imply that Houston was innocent and that pleading guilty was a means to prevent another dear innocent from being convicted). Five were charged and convicted of fraud. Everyone took a fall but one gentleman crook, one of the Walthers.

If I were you, I would ask myself this, Wolf -- of the twenty-some millions of dollars collected by the various lottery (and insurance) schemes, how much was retained by Houston and his partners?

What I don't understand is how a libertarian writer fiercely committed to proper justice could have such a persistent blind spot. In my world, people do indeed suffer from fraud. It is a bad thing to defraud under any guise, akin to theft by deception. I do not understand your effort to whitewash and deny Houston and cronies' wrong-doing. I don't associate you with the con mechanics in any way, and I doubt that anyone else but one dolt here holds you in suspicion of collusion with Houston's scams.

-- I'll publish a couple fake lottery references here sometime later. It's complicated and sordid but substantiates what I assert above. I should give you a head start on your own long-overdue investigation of the 'lottery' claims. Perhaps your investigation will result in a stipulation ... "Yes, the lottery schemes were fraudulent. I had no fucking idea."

I will also answer separately re Houston's scam "bank" ATM. I hope you do a little more digging and bolstering your knowledge on that subject, Wolf. It's not to your discredit that you are wrong or were gulled by Houston in the day, or that you retain affection for a 'scoundrel.' That is a con-man's job -- to be plausible and believable or lovable, exciting, bigger than life. It is part of the game.

Duping old ladies in a massive mail fraud is not something Houston would tell you he was guilty of back in the day. But he did admit to the criminal scheme in the end, so I expect that upon reflection you will update your take to greater reflect reality ...

(Maybe there is some fun to be had arguing that this particular kind of mail fraud or even a Ponzi scheme is or could be part of a free-wheeling libertarian minarchy, be allowed to happen without recourse to law. Maybe there is an edge where a con is almost a just, willing-victim con, where the marks 'deserved it,' and where the con-man in turn 'deserved' his gains from the not-so-innocent dupes. Maybe exists a conception of a libertarian 'perfect world' where some kinds of fraud/scam are not seen as a kind of theft. I don't know if anyone is up to that here and now.

I'd certainly be interested in a fact-based Objectivish argument that Houston's frauds were an instance of unfettered capitalism -- and thus moral ... and so of course I'd be interested if you have already written about fraud in Freeman's Constitution, Galt's Gulch Constitution, or in Laissez-Faire Law. Perhaps there are passages therein which illuminate acts like those of James Ray Houston and Co.)

Edited by william.scherk
Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam wrote, “We elect the "heelots" to office . . . “

I am going to be kind here and ask you a simple/ easy question which you can answer with just a yes or no with no story or flights of fantasia that run as a subtext in your "mind."

Have you actually seen "Meet John Doe?"

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

Apparently you know a great deal more about the lottery than I did. Internal documents showed that Rex contributed $3 million to Laissez Faire City. I didn't ask or care how he got it. Fraud isn't something that deserves special notice in the philosophy of law. I'll search out the few times I may have mentioned it.

It is a triviality that some cyberplayers will defraud the public... [Laissez Faire Law, p.65]

In my opinion, the right to life is contingent. I feel very little compassion for chumps, especially overfed burghers who presume that they can use the courts to force a scam artist to honor some ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky promise. The whole of my empathy is reserved for those who have nothing and for whom life is a struggle. [ibid, p.76]

Should there be legal constraints on use of force, negligence, and fraud? Yes and no. Emphatically yes, there should be severe and certain penalties for wrongful use of the police power... Everything else is arguable, no fixed right or wrong except the right to petition, to sue or be sued, and the obligation to appear when summoned by a laissez faire court of law, all of which is provided explicitly in The Freeman's Constitution. [ibid, p.213]

To be convicted of fraud or adjudged a debtor does not end one's right to life or his persistent presumption of innocence, nor does a verdict of legal 'guilt' appoint and constitute a complainant counterparty or lender to an office of retribution. [COGIGG, p.58]

I hereby certify that the law cannot catch or deter a clever evildoer. That's not the purpose of law, which exists first as a means of restraining mob violence, ignorant prejudice, and statist tyranny. If we apprehend a callous predator, from time to time, that's laudatory. But ending systemic, wholesale injustice is far more urgent, especially the heavy lifting of securing constitutional rights, which are few in number — no summary punishment, fair trial by jury, no perjury, no secret evidence, and the right of appeal to ensure fundamental fairness. [op cit, p.66]

I remember a conversation I had with someone who viewed Laissez Faire City as a scam, years before it was dissolved. I said it didn't matter whether it's a screwy proposition to pay $6000 as a Founder in exchange for worthless warrants. Do it anyway. Support those who are developing anonymous banking software. Win or lose, it's right and proper to conduct a revolutionary war in defense of economic liberty.

Much was lost when LFC collapsed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That Hitchcock, Peckinpah, and Spielberg are studied in film schools is an obscenty.

Oh, of course! Anything outside of your subjective tastes and preferences is not just inferior, but should be banned from the classroom! Your aesthetic preferences are the only ones that should be taught, and everything else is "obscene."

The Holocaust was an obscenity. We don't discuss if it was an objective or subjective obscenity for it's objectified by our humanity. Wolf is certainly invited to explain why what he said was an obscenity is and leave out this objective/subjective crap. I think he was on a moral not so much an esthetic angle. Maybe. Esthetic, go for it--ream him out. I agree with that. Moral is another kettle of fish. Morality can be objectified. Esthetics? Maybe, to some extent. That's hard and I tend to avoid the effort.

--Brant

Ah, I see. The filmmakers Wolf listed weren't aesthetically obscene, but morally so. Only morally speaking was their work the equivalent of the holocaust. I guess then that I misunderstood Schindler's List? I had it completely backwards? It was actually pro-Nazi?

J

Look, let Wolf tell the his tale. He brought up a conclusion illustrated with great filmmakers but no explanation.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites

A supplement addressed to William, who said:

money was never used in the manner promised

This brings to mind a conversation I had with a thoughtful person at Anti-State.com

>Quote from: grounded on July 03, 2003, 09:54:35 pm
>Since I cannot imagine how any society could function without promises or by ignoring all promises as worthless, it seems to me that any functional legal system must take promises more seriously; implying that promises must produce legally binding rights.

My reply:

The source of law IMO is not its measurable utility. Rather, I begin with the formal purpose of an adversarial common law court -- i.e., an unbiased venue to hear and adjudicate cases and controversies. Since the court cannot pronounce on the merits of a case without a hearing (and many other rudiments of fair inquiry), it is logically necessary to permit any natural person or association to file a petition and be heard; to order all those named in a suit or controversy to appear and answer the claims set forth in a petition; and to compel testimony and production of relevant evidence from anyone competent to shed light on the truth or falsehood of the claims and defenses advanced by the litigants. So far, this ancap court has cost everybody time, money, and embarrassment. I don't see any inherent utility, unless it is a wonderfully wise society with judges and juries who never fail to acquit the innocent and who always award precisely fair damages. I have very modest expectations of success. Men do wrong and lie about it afterward. It often happens that there was some wrongdoing by every party in the case, including judges and juries on occasion, which multiplies the mess and creates a compelling need for appellate review. More time and money lost. So, why litigate? Most people don't and won't. They use collection agencies, credit reporting services, peer pressure, contractually mandated arbitration, or the threat of costly legal action to negotiate a settlement. I did one of these last month. The bad guy should've gone to jail, but he got off with partial restitution, which is typical of most mediation. [Laissez Faire Law, pp.177-178]

Link to post
Share on other sites

>Quote from: grounded on July 03, 2003, 09:54:35 pm

>Since I cannot imagine how any society could function without promises or by ignoring all promises as worthless, it seems to me that any functional legal system must take promises more seriously; implying that promises must produce legally binding rights.

My reply:

The source of law IMO is not its measurable utility. Rather, I begin with the formal purpose of an adversarial common law court -- i.e., an unbiased venue to hear and adjudicate cases and controversies. Since the court cannot pronounce on the merits of a case without a hearing (and many other rudiments of fair inquiry), it is logically necessary to permit any natural person or association to file a petition and be heard; to order all those named in a suit or controversy to appear and answer the claims set forth in a petition; and to compel testimony and production of relevant evidence from anyone competent to shed light on the truth or falsehood of the claims and defenses advanced by the litigants. So far, this ancap court has cost everybody time, money, and embarrassment. I don't see any inherent utility, unless it is a wonderfully wise society with judges and juries who never fail to acquit the innocent and who always award precisely fair damages. I have very modest expectations of success. Men do wrong and lie about it afterward. It often happens that there was some wrongdoing by every party in the case, including judges and juries on occasion, which multiplies the mess and creates a compelling need for appellate review. More time and money lost. So, why litigate? Most people don't and won't. They use collection agencies, credit reporting services, peer pressure, contractually mandated arbitration, or the threat of costly legal action to negotiate a settlement. I did one of these last month. The bad guy should've gone to jail, but he got off with partial restitution, which is typical of most mediation. [Laissez Faire Law, pp.177-178]

Solid paradigm.

It also eviscerates the "prosecutorial discretion" corruption which is monetarily and agenda driven which of course makes it also political.

I have derived much more self fulfillment in being a mediator versus being an advocate zealously arguing for what is right.

However, there are few things as sublime as winning what is right or just in the public square.

Damn, now I will have to read your Laissez Faire Law - too much on my list already.

Good stuff Wolf, good stuff.

A...

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my way of thinking a legal system is imposed and maintained by force. Essentially that was the American Revolutionary War and not the case with LFC. So, what's the beef--again--with LFC? It's constitution?

--Brant

naughty naughty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Author Jackie Collins who was sister to Joan Collins from Dynasty (or as I used to jokingly call it, Die Nasty) died too young of breast cancer. Sorry to see her go.

Tweet. Foul. Yes A Dam I have seen Meet John Doe but I don’t remember the Walter Brennan heelot scene. I think I may have seen the movie in the 70’s the last time. To make up for my uncharacteristic lapse I give you an old joke.
Peter

deleted old joke. told not funny. It does not go with the news of Jackie but I will leave the joke in about her sister's show since I don't think she was ever on it. Me replace with Tarzan joke me just made up. Me tarmac. You plane. It might not have been gotten by a kid but I would not want my granddaughter reading that joke and then asking questions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"He said I could have one wish, anything I wanted. So I told him, and he gave me a fourteen-inch pianist."

Bartender's response to another poor attempt at humor...

80010525jq1.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

Apparently you know a great deal more about the lottery than I did. Internal documents showed that Rex contributed $3 million to Laissez Faire City. I didn't ask or care how he got it. Fraud isn't something that deserves special notice in the philosophy of law. I'll search out the few times I may have mentioned it.

It is a triviality that some cyberplayers will defraud the public... [Laissez Faire Law, p.65]

In my opinion, the right to life is contingent. I feel very little compassion for chumps, especially overfed burghers who presume that they can use the courts to force a scam artist to honor some ridiculous, pie-in-the-sky promise. The whole of my empathy is reserved for those who have nothing and for whom life is a struggle. [ibid, p.76]

Should there be legal constraints on use of force, negligence, and fraud? Yes and no. Emphatically yes, there should be severe and certain penalties for wrongful use of the police power... Everything else is arguable, no fixed right or wrong except the right to petition, to sue or be sued, and the obligation to appear when summoned by a laissez faire court of law, all of which is provided explicitly in The Freeman's Constitution. [ibid, p.213]

To be convicted of fraud or adjudged a debtor does not end one's right to life or his persistent presumption of innocence, nor does a verdict of legal 'guilt' appoint and constitute a complainant counterparty or lender to an office of retribution. [COGIGG, p.58]

I hereby certify that the law cannot catch or deter a clever evildoer. That's not the purpose of law, which exists first as a means of restraining mob violence, ignorant prejudice, and statist tyranny. If we apprehend a callous predator, from time to time, that's laudatory. But ending systemic, wholesale injustice is far more urgent, especially the heavy lifting of securing constitutional rights, which are few in number no summary punishment, fair trial by jury, no perjury, no secret evidence, and the right of appeal to ensure fundamental fairness. [op cit, p.66]

I remember a conversation I had with someone who viewed Laissez Faire City as a scam, years before it was dissolved. I said it didn't matter whether it's a screwy proposition to pay $6000 as a Founder in exchange for worthless warrants. Do it anyway. Support those who are developing anonymous banking software. Win or lose, it's right and proper to conduct a revolutionary war in defense of economic liberty.

Much was lost when LFC collapsed.

I guess that answers my question about Grabbe grabbing his software from "Rex" and the "idiot" "whiz kids": regardless of Grabbe's reasons or motives or contractual obligations, it's no big deal that he pulled the rug out from under "chumps" and "overfed burghers."

Anyway, "Wolf," now that I've had the opportunity to read multiple examples of your citing your own babblings about your opinions on the topic of law, I'm wondering if you're ever going to get around to doing some actual philosophy of law.

Back in post 54, you boasted:

"Ayn Rand's achievement in defining the sanction of the victim was a big step, but didn't address philosophy of law. I did."

Heh. Not from what I've seen. In fact the reverse is true. Rand did very little in the area of philosophy of law, but what she did was actual philosophy, where what you do is to make unsupported opinions based on your "empathies" and other arbitrary, personal preferences. You provide no reasoning or rationale, but merely make declarations, and either unsupported or false assertions. It's anything but "philosophy of law." It's mere posing and opining by a pitiful self-aggrandizer.

Who are trying to fool, and why?

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No man should be allowed to judge his own case." -- "Wolf DeVoon"

And yet when I've called "Wolf" "Pup," or "Pup BaBoon," he has threatened that, if I ever call him such names in person, he will settle it right then and there by taking matters into his own hands and making me deeply regret it. Badass street fighter and judge-in-his-own-case "Wolf" is going to open up such an enormous can of whoopass that the beating I receive will alter my outlook on life.

"Wolf," do you ever think anything through? I mean, for a legal scholar/philosopher wannabe, why doesn't it ever occur to you to consider critically examining any of your ideas or behavior?

J

P.S. Can we arrange to meet briefly, alone in a dark alley or somewhere similar? After having learned so much more about you now, I'm eager to have that face-to-face encounter in which you imagine that you're going to set me straight and change my world. Please, let's set up a time and place that's convenient for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No man should be allowed to judge his own case." -- "Wolf DeVoon"

And yet when I've called "Wolf" "Pup," or "Pup BaBoon," he has threatened that, if I ever call him such names in person, he will settle it right then and there by taking matters into his own hands and making me deeply regret it. Badass street fighter and judge-in-his-own-case "Wolf" is going to open up such an enormous can of whoopass that the beating I receive will alter my outlook on life.

"Wolf," do you ever think anything through? I mean, for a legal scholar/philosopher wannabe, why doesn't it ever occur to you to consider critically examining any of your ideas or behavior?

J

P.S. Can we arrange to meet briefly, alone in a dark alley or somewhere similar? After having learned so much more about you now, I'm eager to have that face-to-face encounter in which you imagine that you're going to set me straight and change my world. Please, let's set up a time and place that's convenient for you.

Wolf said something in a heated moment and backed off. Are you in heat all the time? You know this encounter is never going to take place. What are your particulars that make you so brave? Details: military experience, fighting background, years spent as a bouncer in a biker bar, martial arts degrees, height, weight, age, body composition, strength benchmarks, impress me with your physical prowess. Upgrade this picture:

internet-tough-guys-skinny-boy-pic.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I seem to remember you saying you were backing off. What accounts for your present assholery?

Whatever you're doing there's a cat somewhere that can do better:

tumblr_mdk1xcrpZJ1r88u00o1_500.jpg

Sorry if I was misunderstood, but I didn't mean to suggest that I'd be backing off in regard to all of "Wolf's" shenanigans, but only in regard to his pathetic self-aggrandizement of his filmmaking talents. My pity involved my seeing what his career has produced and comparing it to his pissing on much, much better filmmakers. Normally I'd want to have a good laugh at such delusional hubris, but in this case it really is just too pathetic to enjoy any humor in it.

Anyway, do you have a crush on "Wolf" or something? Has he conned you into thinking that he's the brilliant philosopher of law that he poses as being? I think that you're illustrating why charlatans target Objectivish-types. You're so easily manipulated. Someone comes along and claims to be Rand-influenced, and you go fucking gaga over them, despite their being quite anti-Objectivish in their ideas and behavior. Wake up, dupe!

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No man should be allowed to judge his own case." -- "Wolf DeVoon"

And yet when I've called "Wolf" "Pup," or "Pup BaBoon," he has threatened that, if I ever call him such names in person, he will settle it right then and there by taking matters into his own hands and making me deeply regret it. Badass street fighter and judge-in-his-own-case "Wolf" is going to open up such an enormous can of whoopass that the beating I receive will alter my outlook on life.

"Wolf," do you ever think anything through? I mean, for a legal scholar/philosopher wannabe, why doesn't it ever occur to you to consider critically examining any of your ideas or behavior?

J

P.S. Can we arrange to meet briefly, alone in a dark alley or somewhere similar? After having learned so much more about you now, I'm eager to have that face-to-face encounter in which you imagine that you're going to set me straight and change my world. Please, let's set up a time and place that's convenient for you.

Wolf said something in a heated moment and backed off. Are you in heat all the time? You know this encounter is never going to take place. What are your particulars that make you so brave? Details: military experience, fighting background, years spent as a bouncer in a biker bar, martial arts degrees, height, weight, age, body composition, strength benchmarks, impress me with your physical prowess. Upgrade this picture:

internet-tough-guys-skinny-boy-pic.jpg

Are you "Wolf's" girlfriend? You're sure acting like it.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I seem to remember you saying you were backing off. What accounts for your present assholery?

Whatever you're doing there's a cat somewhere that can do better:

tumblr_mdk1xcrpZJ1r88u00o1_500.jpg

Sorry if I was misunderstood, but I didn't mean to suggest that I'd be backing off in regard to all of "Wolf's" shenanigans, but only in regard to his pathetic self-aggrandizement of his filmmaking talents. My pity involved my seeing what his career has produced and comparing it to his pissing on much, much better filmmakers. Normally I'd want to have a good laugh at such delusional hubris, but in this case it really is just too pathetic to enjoy any humor in it.

Anyway, do you have a crush on "Wolf" or something? Has he conned you into thinking that he's the brilliant philosopher of law that he poses as being? I think that you're illustrating why charlatans target Objectivish-types. You're so easily manipulated. Someone comes along and claims to be Rand-influenced, and you go fucking gaga over them, despite their being quite anti-Objectivish in their ideas and behavior. Wake up, dupe!

J

I may disagree with Wolf on the details but we are passionate about the same things, liberty, justice, individualism. Wolf is interesting, you are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you feel better about yourself now, Apey? That's right, let it out! Express your anger about having been shown to be a complete fool in believing magical predictions of doom where everyone but you would get punished.

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I seem to remember you saying you were backing off. What accounts for your present assholery?

Whatever you're doing there's a cat somewhere that can do better:tumblr_mdk1xcrpZJ1r88u00o1_500.jpg

Sorry if I was misunderstood, but I didn't mean to suggest that I'd be backing off in regard to all of "Wolf's" shenanigans, but only in regard to his pathetic self-aggrandizement of his filmmaking talents. My pity involved my seeing what his career has produced and comparing it to his pissing on much, much better filmmakers. Normally I'd want to have a good laugh at such delusional hubris, but in this case it really is just too pathetic to enjoy any humor in it.

Anyway, do you have a crush on "Wolf" or something? Has he conned you into thinking that he's the brilliant philosopher of law that he poses as being? I think that you're illustrating why charlatans target Objectivish-types. You're so easily manipulated. Someone comes along and claims to be Rand-influenced, and you go fucking gaga over them, despite their being quite anti-Objectivish in their ideas and behavior. Wake up, dupe!

J

I may disagree with Wolf on the details but we are passionate about the same things, liberty, justice, individualism. Wolf is interesting, you are not.

Wow, the love bug has bitten you hard! Heh. Did you not read and comprehend "Wolf's" most recent posts, you fool? Hahahaha!

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No man should be allowed to judge his own case." -- "Wolf DeVoon"

And yet when I've called "Wolf" "Pup," or "Pup BaBoon," he has threatened that, if I ever call him such names in person, he will settle it right then and there by taking matters into his own hands and making me deeply regret it. Badass street fighter and judge-in-his-own-case "Wolf" is going to open up such an enormous can of whoopass that the beating I receive will alter my outlook on life.

"Wolf," do you ever think anything through? I mean, for a legal scholar/philosopher wannabe, why doesn't it ever occur to you to consider critically examining any of your ideas or behavior?

J

P.S. Can we arrange to meet briefly, alone in a dark alley or somewhere similar? After having learned so much more about you now, I'm eager to have that face-to-face encounter in which you imagine that you're going to set me straight and change my world. Please, let's set up a time and place that's convenient for you.

Wolf said something in a heated moment and backed off. Are you in heat all the time? You know this encounter is never going to take place. What are your particulars that make you so brave? Details: military experience, fighting background, years spent as a bouncer in a biker bar, martial arts degrees, height, weight, age, body composition, strength benchmarks, impress me with your physical prowess. Upgrade this picture:

internet-tough-guys-skinny-boy-pic.jpg

Are you "Wolf's" girlfriend? You're sure acting like it.

J

Just as I thought. Maybe one of your many, many, female admirers who send you personal messages on OL can chime in your defense. Or do you have an overactive imagination? Or are you just habitually dishonest?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I seem to remember you saying you were backing off. What accounts for your present assholery?

Whatever you're doing there's a cat somewhere that can do better:tumblr_mdk1xcrpZJ1r88u00o1_500.jpg

Sorry if I was misunderstood, but I didn't mean to suggest that I'd be backing off in regard to all of "Wolf's" shenanigans, but only in regard to his pathetic self-aggrandizement of his filmmaking talents. My pity involved my seeing what his career has produced and comparing it to his pissing on much, much better filmmakers. Normally I'd want to have a good laugh at such delusional hubris, but in this case it really is just too pathetic to enjoy any humor in it.

Anyway, do you have a crush on "Wolf" or something? Has he conned you into thinking that he's the brilliant philosopher of law that he poses as being? I think that you're illustrating why charlatans target Objectivish-types. You're so easily manipulated. Someone comes along and claims to be Rand-influenced, and you go fucking gaga over them, despite their being quite anti-Objectivish in their ideas and behavior. Wake up, dupe!

J

I may disagree with Wolf on the details but we are passionate about the same things, liberty, justice, individualism. Wolf is interesting, you are not.

Wow, the love bug has bitten you hard! Heh. Did you not read and comprehend "Wolf's" most recent posts, you fool? Hahahaha!

J

You're losing it Jonathan. Better up your meds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jonathan wrote: Can we arrange to meet briefly, alone in a dark alley or somewhere similar?
end quote

Too little chance of sufficient profit for you Ferengis. Why not rent a gym boxing ring, advertise, allow betting to take place and you get a cut of the bets? That seems more civilized and profitable. Perhaps you might also buy some one day insurance at the airport, and train first so you look and rassle in a ferocious manner. And then give yourselves ring names. Much better than just showing up where the sidewalk ends and having an illegal duel. I don't think there is way to slap over the internet, or size up your opponent, choose weapons, get seconds . . . yeah. That's it. Get seconds who are professional fighters which would be kind of like getting the short high school baseball star to play in The Little League championship game like when Taiwan shows up with guys who need to shave. That way you never get a scratch.

Peter

Link to post
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