From: dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil (Kent Paul Dolan)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs
Subject: reading cj's posts
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:44:41 GMT


> From: cj@eno.wpd.sgi.com (C.J. Silverio)
> Subject: Re: Motorcycle Safety for Gay Men
> Date: 6 Oct 92 21:19:12 GMT


>> CJ sez:

>>>  KPD Doesn't know that the Motorcycle Safety Foundation exists. ...

>> Which reminds me, for all the gay men out there: the Navy Base
>> Moffett Field mandatory motorcycle safety course attendance
>> sticker on my ID card

> You passed the course, and you STILL did the damn-fool-idiot
> thing you did?  You're too stupid to live, Kent.

My, my, your attention span has degenerated in the last few years, CJ.
I wonder why?

Anyone like to volunteer to tell her how many times I bored t.b to
tears with that story of walking out of a motorcycle safety class
October 17th just as Loma Prieta let loose, and ripping my body apart
41 days later from not taking to the lessons?

Unlike those who learn all their reality from "research", I've learned
a lot of mine the hard way, like nearly being killed by not considering
the weight distribution problem with a cantilevered surf board, and
nearly being killed by a severe substance abuse addiction to caffeine.
A gallon and a half of coffee six days a week is not a minor problem,
any more than a front wheel with too little weight on the road is a
minor problem.  Both can dump you into disaster with little warning.

> So I noticed you posted another bunch of articles to t.p.drugs
> today, in which you did your usual thing of:

Yep, seems I can't afford to spend a chunk of every day responding
to the email of the braindead, so my postings to t.p.d tend to be
clumpy.

>    - accusing your opponents of being brain-damaged by drugs,
>      even the ones who don't use any

Their inability to read is not an "accusation", but a well-documented
-by-me-in-multiple-postings-with-annotated-examples _fact_. A person
caught in the act is not an "alleged" robber, and the t.p.d crowd who
can't think their way out of a brown paper bag with a bright light at
the open end aren't "accused" mental handicappeds. Whether, in the many
cases, this stems from use of the drugs whose legalization they
promote, or, in the few cases, simply because stupid causes attract
stupid proponents, makes little difference in the final product, their
collective and individual brain-dead argumentation skills.

>    - failing to substantiate any of your points with research

Sorry, I have no research resources in this desert of academe, nor does
it require research to tell me the evidence of my senses is true, and
the "research" that proposes to deny that evidence nonsense on that
very basis. The claim of science is that research stands or falls on
its ability to predict. When I am quoted "research" that predicts the
opposite of what I experience every day, it is not my experience that
needs revising; the "research" falls by failing the touchstone of
"ground truth".

>    - announcing that you won't be doing any research of your own

Yep, as above, I don't need "research" to tell me the sky is blue when
I am solemnly quoted a vast literature telling me that it is green; I
need merely walk out doors and look around, an exercise I have heartly
recommended and continue to recommend to those who deny the horrific
results of drug use on the basis of "research".

>    - denigrating your opponent's citations by announcing that
>      research is garbage

Research that predicts the opposite of what observation shows to be
true _is_ garbage, as any scientist worth her salt will be more than
willing to tell you at length and in detail, and those who would rather
plan their lives and the lives of others by it than take the time to
look around and learn the everywhere evident truth are well deserving
of blackened reputations, as are like fools everywhere.

>    - arguing ad hominem

Funny about that; as I responded to an email correspondent, there is a
certain need to get the mule's attention; once gained, guiding it down
the proper path is simplicity incarnate in comparision.

> I also noticed that you still haven't responded to my post about
> rights.

Are you honestly so vain that you think I read and have an obligation
to respond to everything you write? You utter so much errant nonsense
with such great solemnity, and retreat so promptly to your "research"
when confronted with simple facts observed in the real world, you
really aren't worth my full time attention.

> If you had any self-awareness, you'd be ashamed of your behavior.

I have _lots_ of self-awareness.  Working to combat a societal malady
that bids fair to destroy this nation somehow doesn't arouse in me a
sense of shame, but of worthiness to breath the air I consume.  I can't
say as much for those who work to rend the social fabric, however.

> As it is, the responses in t.p.d make it clear that you have zero
> credibility.

To those too hazed on drugs or political correctness to think, quite
probably. I don't gauge my self-worth with the measurements offered by
fools, thank you anyway. I am internally consistent and consistent with
the world I see around me, and that suffices.

> Maybe you'd better just give it up.

Not in this lifetime, though I'll grow bored again soon and go on to
other things. Like a sore tooth, though, the social and individual
ravages of drug use and the stupidity of its proponents require
repeated returns to worry at them a little more for a while.

Besides, its lots of fun.

Kent, the man from xanth.
"The Birthright of humankind is the stars!"
--
Ignore the header, and don't expect me to see a news reply.  We don't get news.
Use email to: <dolan@nrlmry.navy.mil> or <dolan@192.138.87.240>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.individualism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.politics.ec,alt.politics.europe.misc