🚀 go-pugleaf

The comments other than Tim Rumford's in this posting are from Robert
Norse, not me.
d.

> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
> by Tim Rumford
>
> Saturday Jan 20th, 2007 9:06 PM
>
>
> Originally a comment on an earlier article about City Council's
> throwing
> $700 Gs at Dannette Shoemaker's Parks and Recreation anti-homeless
> policing,
> I think Tim's thoughts on what homeless people and their housed
> supporters
> can do this winter to resist the War Against the Poor are worth a
> separate
> posting and may spark some interesting discussion.
>
> Tim's remarks were originally published as a comment under my story
> "More
> Police Punishing the Poor in the Pogonip" on January 9th. at
> http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/01/09/
> 18345207.phpshow_comments=1#18347013 .
>
> Since then, Parks and Recreation Dept. boss Shoemaker has refused my
> Public
> Records Act request to release the specific citations showing the
> "illegal
> activity" that justifies throwing $700,000 and a quadrupled police
> force at
> survival homeless campers.
>
> HUFF, the Human Rights Organization, and Tim's Humanity for Homeless
> are all
> working through the 265 anti-homeless camping tickets issued by Ranger
> John
> Wallace over the last half year. We paid $75 to get copies of all these
>
> tickets. Hopefully we can issue a report on them soon. Wallace
> maliciously
> or carelessly gave many of the tickets for times when the activity
> cited
> (covering up with blankets, a kind of "camping" under MC 6.36.010b) was
>
> completely legal, even under the bigoted and abusive language of the
> law he
> was supposedly enforcing.
>
> Local ACLU attorney Don Zimmerman, though still tracking the matter and
>
> writing letters to the larger northern California ACLU organization,
> has not
> to our knowledge acted on our request to speak out publicly and
> mobilize
> support for poor people facing a direct denial of their 8th Amendment
> rights
> (the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment).
>
> As has been mentioned before, more than 45 homeless people died in
> 2006--some of them could have been saved, we believe, if they had been
> living in communal camps where they could help each other.
>
> Attorneys in San Francisco and Washington D.C. have expressed sympathy
> and
> interest in advising and/or assisting in a lawsuit to bring a renegade
> city
> attorney and city council back under the constitution and restore
> survival
> camping rights to vulnerable homeless people.
>
> HRO activists Bob Patton and Bernard Klitzner met with Mayor Emily
> Reilly
> last Thursday. She indicated the City would continue to ticket and
> arrest
> homeless people in spite of the historic Jones decision in Los Angeles,
>
> which has stopped such arrests in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Richmond.
>
> Listen to the interview at http://www.huffsantacruz.org/brb.html under
> 07-01-18--January 18, 2007.
>
> We also hope to return to City Attorney Barisone's office on Church St.
>
> and
> Vice-Mayor Coonerty's Bookshop Santa Cruz store downtown to demand
> these
> public officials follow the law and the Constitution. These are
> possible
> sites for a sleep-out or camp-in, as well.
>
> Tim's remarks below, he tells us, represent a first draft of a more
> specific
> plan and call to action.
>
> He can be reached through his blog at
> http://www.humanityforhomeless.blogspot.com, at the meal he distributes
>
> every Monday night 6-8 PM in front of New Leaf Market in downtown Santa
>
> Cruz
> on Pacific Avenue, or at the HUFF (Wednesdays 9:30 AM- 11:30 AM,
> American
> Cafe at 701 Ocean St. in the basement of the County Building) or the
> HRO
> (Saturdays 1:45-2:45 PM at the Dining Bay of the Homeless Services
> Center at
> 115 Coral St.) meetings.
>
>
>
> MAYBE IT'S TIME TO STAND UP
>
> I know its easy to say and hard to do, but I really feel its time for
> some
> real direct action with the homeless and concerned activists and people
>
> to
> get involved. Its hard to get anyone to take such action and with the
> homeless its even more difficult, they are busy surviving or may have
> warrants -- there are many issues that make convincing the homeless to
> stand
> up against the war on poverty, which is what it is.
>
> I do not believe that ending the sleeping ban or changing ordinances
> will
> happen through using the system, its a war. It does help to fight it
> anyway
> you can but its been long enough. I do believe the homeless can stand
> up and
> what we need to is something like this, please bare with this, it is an
>
> idea
> and not a perfectly thought out one I use it to make a point.
>
> 1) Organize a camp out at Pogonip; we make a camp in plane sight. We
> name it
> and have clear goals with a mission statement. It will be a protest
> camp and
> as large as possible. We have clear goals, a posted mission statement.
>
> 2) We fill it with activists and homeless with cheap disposable cameras
>
> for
> all. Some will bring better cameras and video.
>
> 3) We post signs to make it clear we are protesting. We have things
> there of
> value... Eventually we will get kicked out but we stick it out until
> they
> force us, we all take the tickets or go to jail so we can fight them.
> If
> they destroy property we take pictures. If we have to go to jail we do
> -
> unless during organizing we find it would benefit us more to use
> sleeping
> ban tickets better then resisting arrest.
>
> 4) We watch Ranger Wallace who has given out more sleeping ban tickets
> then
> all the city cops combined, mostly in the Pogonip while were camping.
> We
> document and get evidence of property abuse and civil and human rights
> abuse
> as they did in Fresno, which Robert and Mike Rhodes have written about
> here
> on Indybay.
>
> 5) We camp responsibly and help and teach / promote others to do the
> same.
> We have teach ins on camping responsibly and campers forming there own
> clean
> up crews who become sort of stewards of this beautiful area.
>
> 6) We clean up trash while we're there.
>
> 7) We get as much media as we possible can.
>
> 8) We use tactics such as handcuffing yourself to a tree or whatever
> your
> willing to do.
>
> Getting the homeless to do this is hard but I have faith and have
> talked to
> many who are willing to take such an action. It will take allot of
> willing
> people.
>
> I am willing are you?
>
> TIM RUMFORD
>
> http://humanityforhomeless.blogspot.com/
> 
> http://www.humanityforhomeless.blogspot.co...

dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
> [incoherent rant]

Here you are back again, still working against the 
interests of homeless people, still unable to 
articulate your belief in your own words as to how 
helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.

You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.

dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> The comments other than Tim Rumford's in this posting are from Robert
> Norse, not me.

But you stupidly sympathize with them, even though you 
don't have the ability to articulate them in your own 
words.

You stupid bleeding-heart hand wringing shitbag.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
> > [incoherent rant]
>
> Here you are back again, still working against the
> interests of homeless people, still unable to
> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
>
> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.

Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
with?

still unable to contribute anything meaningful 
dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
>>> [incoherent rant]
>> Here you are back again, still working against the
>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
>>
>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
> 
> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
> with?

I already did, once, the first time you posted one of 
the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing 
with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree 
with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.

Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of 
actually arguing the point?

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
> >>> [incoherent rant]
> >> Here you are back again, still working against the
> >> interests of homeless people, still unable to
> >> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
> >> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
> >>
> >> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
> >
> > Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
> > with?
>
> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
>
> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
> actually arguing the point?

That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.

Are all publishers 'cat's paws'?  There is a difference between
'publishing' and 'authoring'.  There may be very sound reasons to
publish something whether or not the content is agreeable.

dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
>>>>> [incoherent rant]
>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
>>>>
>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
>>> with?
>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
>>
>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
>> actually arguing the point?
> 
> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.

There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.

If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you 
participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some 
other twit's cat's paw?

You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent 
thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You 
are all style and no substance.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
> >> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
> >>>>> [incoherent rant]
> >>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
> >>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
> >>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
> >>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
> >>>>
> >>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
> >>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
> >>> with?
> >> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
> >> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
> >> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
> >> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
> >>
> >> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
> >> actually arguing the point?
> >
> > That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
>
> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
>
> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
> other twit's cat's paw?
>
> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
> are all style and no substance.

When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
syllogism can be inferred.

This is what you appear to be saying:

1.  Anyone who forwards another's posting concurs with its content
2.  dhm forwards other's postings
3.  Therefore, dhm concurs with what is said in the forwarded posting.
4.  Therefore, dhm is clearly unable to articulate independent thoughts
and is a cat's paw, with all style and no substance.

Do you see now where you became a moron?

dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
>>>>>>> [incoherent rant]
>>>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
>>>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
>>>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
>>>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
>>>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
>>>>> with?
>>>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
>>>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
>>>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
>>>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
>>>>
>>>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
>>>> actually arguing the point?
>>> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
>> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
>>
>> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
>> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
>> other twit's cat's paw?
>>
>> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
>> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
>> are all style and no substance.
> 
> When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
> syllogism can be inferred.

You're still whiffing off - that means gutlessly 
avoiding the issue.  The issue is not syllogisms, of 
which *none* can legitimately be inferred.  The issue 
is homelessness, and your inability to articulate any 
of your own thoughts on it.

Answer the question:  why do you allow your childlike 
sympathy for homeless people to cloud your judgment 
into making you work against their interests?  They are 
not well served by things that perpetuate their 
homelessness, but that's what you're doing.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
> >>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
> >>>>>>> [incoherent rant]
> >>>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
> >>>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
> >>>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
> >>>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
> >>>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
> >>>>> with?
> >>>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
> >>>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
> >>>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
> >>>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
> >>>> actually arguing the point?
> >>> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
> >> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
> >>
> >> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
> >> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
> >> other twit's cat's paw?
> >>
> >> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
> >> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
> >> are all style and no substance.
> >
> > When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
> > syllogism can be inferred.
>
> You're still whiffing off - that means gutlessly
> avoiding the issue.  The issue is not syllogisms, of
> which *none* can legitimately be inferred.  The issue
> is homelessness, and your inability to articulate any
> of your own thoughts on it.
>
> Answer the question:  why do you allow your childlike
> sympathy for homeless people to cloud your judgment
> into making you work against their interests?  They are
> not well served by things that perpetuate their
> homelessness, but that's what you're doing.

So where did you acquire your own thoughts on homelessness?

dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >>>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
> > >>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > >>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >>>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
> > >>>>>>> [incoherent rant]
> > >>>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
> > >>>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
> > >>>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
> > >>>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
> > >>>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
> > >>>>> with?
> > >>>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
> > >>>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
> > >>>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
> > >>>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
> > >>>> actually arguing the point?
> > >>> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
> > >> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
> > >>
> > >> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
> > >> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
> > >> other twit's cat's paw?
> > >>
> > >> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
> > >> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
> > >> are all style and no substance.
> > >
> > > When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
> > > syllogism can be inferred.
> >
> > You're still whiffing off - that means gutlessly
> > avoiding the issue.  The issue is not syllogisms, of
> > which *none* can legitimately be inferred.  The issue
> > is homelessness, and your inability to articulate any
> > of your own thoughts on it.
> >
> > Answer the question:  why do you allow your childlike
> > sympathy for homeless people to cloud your judgment
> > into making you work against their interests?  They are
> > not well served by things that perpetuate their
> > homelessness, but that's what you're doing.
>
> So wh...

There's the predictable continued evasion.

Tell us your thoughts on homelessness, shithead.  And you can leave out
where you got them, because no one cares.  Just state your case.  Stop
with the sophomoric evasiveness.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > >> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > >>>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
> > > >>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
> > > >>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
> > > >>>>>>> [incoherent rant]
> > > >>>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
> > > >>>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
> > > >>>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
> > > >>>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
> > > >>>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
> > > >>>>> with?
> > > >>>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
> > > >>>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
> > > >>>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
> > > >>>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
> > > >>>> actually arguing the point?
> > > >>> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
> > > >> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
> > > >>
> > > >> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
> > > >> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
> > > >> other twit's cat's paw?
> > > >>
> > > >> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
> > > >> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
> > > >> are all style and no substance.
> > > >
> > > > When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
> > > > syllogism can be inferred.
> > >
> > > You're still whiffing off - that means gutlessly
> > > avoiding the issue.  The issue is not syllogisms, of
> > > which *none* can legitimately be inferred.  The issue
> > > is homelessness, and your inability to articulate any
> > > of your own thoughts on it.
> > >
> > > Answer the question:  why do you allow your childlike
> > > sympathy for homeless people to cloud your judgment
> > > into making you work against their interests?  They are
> > > not well served by things that perpetuate their
> > > homelessness, but that's what you're doing.
> >
> > So wh...
>
> There's the predictable continued evasion.
>
> Tell us your thoughts on homelessness, shithead.  And you can leave out
> where you got them, because no one cares.  Just state your case.  Stop
> with the sophomoric evasiveness.

So, what do you want to know about homelessness?

dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
>>>>>>>>>>> [incoherent rant]
>>>>>>>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
>>>>>>>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
>>>>>>>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
>>>>>>>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
>>>>>>>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
>>>>>>>>> with?
>>>>>>>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
>>>>>>>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
>>>>>>>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
>>>>>>>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
>>>>>>>> actually arguing the point?
>>>>>>> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
>>>>>> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
>>>>>> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
>>>>>> other twit's cat's paw?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
>>>>>> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
>>>>>> are all style and no substance.
>>>>> When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
>>>>> syllogism can be inferred.
>>>> You're still whiffing off - that means gutlessly
>>>> avoiding the issue.  The issue is not syllogisms, of
>>>> which *none* can legitimately be inferred.  The issue
>>>> is homelessness, and your inability to articulate any
>>>> of your own thoughts on it.
>>>>
>>>> Answer the question:  why do you allow your childlike
>>>> sympathy for homeless people to cloud your judgment
>>>> into making you work against their interests?  They are
>>>> not well served by things that perpetuate their
>>>> homelessness, but that's what you're doing.
>>> So wh...
>> There's the predictable continued evasion.
>>
>> Tell us your thoughts on homelessness, shithead.  And you can leave out
>> where you got them, because no one cares.  Just state your case.  Stop
>> with the sophomoric evasiveness.
> 
> So, what do you want to

Still going with the sophomoric evasiveness.

I know that you think you're "winning" some kind of 
game here.  You are wrong.

dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>> still unable to contribute anything meaningful
>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> dhm_at_best_dot_com@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> First Thoughts Toward Homeless Resistance
>>>>>>>>>>> [incoherent rant]
>>>>>>>>>> Here you are back again, still working against the
>>>>>>>>>> interests of homeless people, still unable to
>>>>>>>>>> articulate your belief in your own words as to how
>>>>>>>>>> helping to keep homeless people homeless is good for them.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You really are a tunnel-vision shitbag.
>>>>>>>>> Why don't you address the authors of the postings that you disagree
>>>>>>>>> with?
>>>>>>>> I already did, once, the first time you posted one of
>>>>>>>> the moron's crap.  But I'm not interested in arguing
>>>>>>>> with some guy who posts through a cat's paw.  You agree
>>>>>>>> with the moron, so you should defend the point of view.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why are you serving as the dummy's cat's paw instead of
>>>>>>>> actually arguing the point?
>>>>>>> That is a fair question.  But your syllogism is faulty.
>>>>>> There's no "syllogism"; you've misused the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you think a debate is worth having, why aren't you
>>>>>> participating in it?  Why are you merely acting as some
>>>>>> other twit's cat's paw?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem clearly unable to articulate any independent
>>>>>> thoughts about homelessness or any other topic.  You
>>>>>> are all style and no substance.
>>>>> When you jump to conclusions as you have done, a corresponding
>>>>> syllogism can be inferred.
>>>> You're still whiffing off - that means gutlessly
>>>> avoiding the issue.  The issue is not syllogisms, of
>>>> which *none* can legitimately be inferred.  The issue
>>>> is homelessness, and your inability to articulate any
>>>> of your own thoughts on it.
>>>>
>>>> Answer the question:  why do you allow your childlike
>>>> sympathy for homeless people to cloud your judgment
>>>> into making you work against their interests?  They are
>>>> not well served by things that perpetuate their
>>>> homelessness, but that's what you're doing.
>>> So wh...
>> There's the predictable continued evasion.
>>
>> Tell us your thoughts on homelessness, shithead.  And you can leave out
>> where you got them, because no one cares.  Just state your case.  Stop
>> with the sophomoric evasiveness.
> 
> So, what do you want to know about homelessness?
> 

You are replying to a clueless troll, whom I shall expose shortly.


-- 
Americans for the Separation of Drugs and Alcohol.