🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <86vmu3$rkl$1@justus.ecc.lu>, Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>In article <86u5cs$diq$2@pyrite.mv.net>,
>	"Bill Todd" <billtodd@foo.mv.com> writes:
>> Your tolerance for this wacko is in some ways admirable, but I'm inclined to
>> suggest that its only effect seems to be to encourage him.
>He doesn't need encouragement. 
>
> 
>> Aside from the curiosity of observing the workings of an incompetent
>> intellect, his posts don't seem to have anything to offer either this
>> discussion or, more generally, the newsgroups in which it is taking place.
>Incompetent he's not. My interest in Richard is to understand how
>someone can be so certain that his worldview is correct, even if
>it makes him say things like:
>:: I'd actually welcome rule of the strongest. You know why? Because
>:: that would mean rule of the /mob/. And that's far better than what
>:: we currently have.
>which is so obviously false (as a youngster, I lived through
>an episode of mob rule in the Republic of Congo, and even though
>I was only 11 then, and it felt at moments like living a Western,
>I've no desire to see further looting, murdering and raping).
>
>It sure seems to support my idea that evil people think of themselves as
>morally superior, and benefactors of mankind. (You may consider this
>as the summoning of the untalented Austrian aquarel artist :-)

It's been said again and again that the most harmful acts of evil are
those perpetrated every day with the best of intentions.