🚀 go-pugleaf

> 
> 
> meredith.scsn.net (Kevin Meredith?) wrote, replying to taxfree:
> 
> Let's see, here, hmmmm. . .  "not by gentle fashion" . . . "extreme
> prejudice" . . . 
> 
> These are code words for violence, no?
> 
> So who dies? Just adults, or kids too? Just childless people, or moms
> and dads too? People who own firms that allegedly contribute to
> greenhouse effects, or the managers thereof, or the workers, or anyone
> who protests the killing, or who?
> 


> taxfree@planeteer.com (Daniel J. Lavigne) responds:
> 
> Your daily adoration of �Apocalypse Now� and other related 
> movies glamorizing the power of the state has you concerned 
> that others may use similar scenarios to force your kind to address your
> desires to commit the ultimate violence.


Whoa! Slow down, man. I'm going to have to break up the above sentence to
understand it, okay?


> Your daily adoration of �Apocalypse Now� and other related 
> movies


Actually, I catch about one movie a month. Some of them are pretty good,
but I can't say I've ever adored a movie. And "daily adoration" is really
stretching it.



> glamorizing the power of the state


Huh? I saw Apocalypse Now and came away with a strong impression of the
madness and horror of war. The village battle scene where the Vietnamese
woman is gunned down from behind and the black soldier with the mangled
leg screams in pain continues to haunt me. I also remember discussions of
arms and heads being lopped off. There was nothing glamorous about the
film. I suggest you watch it.




 has you concerned 
> that others may use similar scenarios to force your kind to address your
> desires to commit the ultimate violence.


Even after breaking it up, I'm still lost. Could you please try again?




> 
> The phrases "not by gentle fashion" and "extreme prejudice" 
> mean exactly what they say.


So you're saying my interpretation is right? You do feel that killing
polluters, tax collectors, and anyone else who does something you don't
like is appropriate? Just say yes or no, please.




 And they are doing exactly 
> what they were designed to do. Provoke comment.


What troubles me is that the apocalyptic demagoguery you possess a small
talent for, combined with your implied calls for violence, can very easily
lead to tragedy. Even if you have no intention of killing someone
yourself, there are frustrated and weak-minded individuals out there who
will see your words as justification for doing something stupid.


> 
> Your review of the taxfree@planeteer.com thread will 
> have informed you that less than 670 people are expected 
> to take part in the tax refusal - world wide - by my 
> estimate within the next three years. 
> 
> By estimates of others including some who believe, 
> such as you do, that all should willingly support 
> preparations to commit mass murder, the number of 
> active participants falls to 10 or less in that time.
> 
> Why are you displaying such concern Kevin? 


Believe me, taxfree, your threads are not keeping me up at night. But I
just can't resist posting vehemently when I read something I consider so
obviously, logically and provably wrong. I guess part of my motivation is
providing balance for young and/or impressionable people who would read
your posts and decide, because you use big words, write poetry and
otherwise go unchallenged, that you might be right.


> 
> Is conscience gnawing at your soul? 


Um, no.




> Are pangs of 
> cognizant culpability suggesting that you reconsider
> your adulation of power and your nation�s possession 
> of and willingness to use weapons of mass murder?


I'm more from the Eisenhower school of thought. As Ike said in his
farewell address, every bullet manufactured is food a hungry child won't
get. Your obsession with "weapons of mass murder" is too narrow and
ignores all the smaller weapons that have killed many more people. I hate
that humans have had to waste so many life-giving resources for tools that
kill. But the modern improvements in human behavior are obvious to me,
especially as democracy has become the norm in nations around the world.
You preach a religion of despair. I see plenty of evidence of hope.





> 
> Or, perhaps more correctly, your simply pissed off that 
> one singular individual had backbone sufficient to 
> tackle societal insanity and win lawful recognition 
> of his claimed right to refuse to support your 
> special madness?
> 


There is no backbone required to file a lawsuit against the Canadian
government. Were you threatened with imprisonment or torture by the
government, or assault by your fellow citizens? Were you fired from your
job? Were you evicted from your home? I think not. But believe me,
taxfree, as much as I disagree with you, I would be much more pissed off
if you answered yes to any of these questions. 




> Could it be that your lack of backbone to fight 
> the bastards of this world is upsetting your image 
> as a �public hero�?
> 


Um, are you confusing me with someone else? Public hero I ain't.




> Which is it little guy?
> 
> Remember, all I did was tell a government, its judges 
> and its lawyers to go play their games with your kind 
> for as long as they wished, and I would not interfere. 
> 
> I also accused the Federal Court Of Canada of being in 
> contempt of court.



Actually, I'm impressed. I don't think it took a lot of backbone, but it
took a lot of cleverness, I'm sure, strong beliefs, and lots of time and
determination.

But I'm still curious about whether you feel any "pangs of cognizant
culpability" when you drive over streets built by your taxpaying fellow
citizens, check out books at the library, or get any help from anyone
educated in a school funded by taxes. Whom do you call when your computer
breaks down, for example? Do you ever see a doctor? Do you live in a
building designed by engineers and architects?



 Try that, please, with your Federal 
> Court and report back to your adoring public.


Hmmm. There you go again. I don't have an adoring public, but I'm
flattered that you think I do.




> 
> Or could it be that your really a wage slave who can 
> not get over the fact that someone refuses to submit 
> to the control of others? A submission that seems to 
> be a necessary part of your life? 


I honestly have not done much thinking about whether or not you submit to
the control of others. You could have a domineering wife, for all I know.
Either way, it's not a big problem for me.




> 
> You mentioned �who�? Perhaps because of a fear that what you would have
> allowed to be done to others may be done to you? 


I don't support killing of anyone in any form except strictly-defined
self-defense. And I'm not, as you seem to be, prepared to kill someone
because of their role in a manufacturing or national defense operation
that might produce an end result I don't agree with. Environmental laws
and diplomacy, respectively, will go a great deal further toward
preventing unpleasant outcomes than your violence or refusal to pay taxes.




(snip)

> 
> Once again, reread your rantings. Whats this �we�re 
> disarming� crap? Are you a Ukrainian? If not, stop 
> saying things that you know are outright lies.


I've seen it in the papers and on TV. I believe it's true. If you're one
of those "the media's all part of the conspiracy" types, I cannot prove
you wrong and have no interest in trying.



> 
> Just a small hint little guy. Your social status is 
> showing. Think before you write.


Hmmm. Okay.



> 
> Enough! Either you choose to learn or to remain in your 
> fungus infested mold of thought. Its your choice. 


Fungus . . . mold . . . I like that. I've dabbled in poetry myself, and I
think that line's a winner. But I would hyphenate as follows:
"fungus-infested."



> 
> I leave you with your beliefs about the necessity of 
> accepting the murder of millions as all being part of 
> your duty as a �good� citizen; ... and the scope of 
> this growing tax refusal.


But a little earlier, you predicted no more than 670 disciples in the next
three years. That's not really that much growth.


Gotta go, taxfree, but here's a few last words of advice: Please, don't
kill anyone, or you'll spend a long time being supported by other people's
taxes -- and that would be a contradiction for you, wouldn't it?



>