"Was I that Stupid"
Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:04:46 -0500 (EST)
Imagine that you happen to witness an event which becomes widely known.
Let's say it's a shooting in a convenience store. You see with your own
eyes that the shooter was wearing a bright green down jacket. There are
plenty of other witnesses and videotape to confirm this fact. It's not
subjective; any faintly plausible evaluation of the evidence will confirm
it. The fact that the jacket was not a red hooded sweatshirt turns out to
be politically inconvenient for some faction, and that faction attempts to
overturn the truth by repeating, over and over again, that it was a red
I'm surprised to see any non-whacko forkers taking the complacent email
seriously. As evidence it's useless, because it's a logical fallacy to
assume both that intention and action are the same and that complacent.org
is a significant group, and there's a mountain of high quality evidence
which contracts it.
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
> Lucas, I'm no great defender of johnhall, but the annoucement
> even *called* it a "party". Other party-ish words included:
> "Carnival style"
> "portable booming sound systems"
> "Samba bands"
> "semi-boneless puffy blimp"
> "merry misfits"
> - Joe
> P.S. Okay, one of those was a Life In Hell reference.
> But the rest really were there in the announcement.