Goodbye

I tire of arguing over many things the answers to which should be rather obvious anyway. I'm going away to the other 2+2 forums which require real thought.


Sorry Ray Springfield but you'll be on your own against the likes of Alger, ripdog and brad for a while. You can handle Alger if you stick to short factual points and don't let the sheer volume of his nonsense overwhelm you.


John Cole: I will see you around anyway;)


It probably isn't healthy for me to spend so much time fixated on world problems and terrorists and in responding to inane arguments. Time to do a little leveling in poker theory and in real poker too. C ya'll 'round it was fun.

You come here, and start telling me you have the authority to vote on what size car I should drive, how much gas I can buy, and so on.


Then a couple people, not even laying their hands on your car mind you, just attack your positions using words, and you turn tail and run.


What a pushover you are. You are the kind of person, M, who would let a sweettalker like Bill Clinton take everything you have, and use it to win interns.


But when they use your vote to start coming after what I have, you're going to hear about it in every venue available to me.


eLROY

The post directly beneath yours provides ample evidence of the sanity of your decision.


Enjoyed the debate. See ya on the other forums.

Do you expect us to be civil - standing idly by and smiling - while you design your brave new world out of our property?


You tax-mad communists will steal, steal, steal, all day, but then, when the victim lets out a whimper, well, what was that all about?


Do you even realize that, at the root of your every political ideal, is theft, and control?


Do you have any semblance of the morals which created This Great Nation?


DO YOU FANCY YOURSELF THAT SUPERIOR?


eLROY

Actually, I find that eLROY's posts do make me think and explore. My tactic now is to ignore his inflammatory rhetoric and concentrate on debunking only one of his assertions per thread. It's all I have time for anyway. It's like arguing with my step-dad lawyer when I was 12. I know his arguments are flawed, but I don't have the knowledge or experience to refute them right off the bat. Yeah, he's an ass, but that's his right. I'll miss having another anti-eLROY comrade. Since I used the term "comrade" it means I'm a godless commie, right Elroy?

anytime you get down to facts, liberals usually end the discussion.


anytime you can get away from opinions and start sourcing facts you can usually win an argument.


brad

Mark,


Unfortunately, we don't get to run into each other often enough. So, if you don't decide to post here, at least peruse every so often. I've enjoyed the debates you've had with Chris Alger because, for the most part, you are both sane, rational people, even if you disagree. And, I enjoy watching you think through stuff in your writing.


When things quiet down at my end--and nothing's been quiet lately--let's try to get together for dinner.


Best,


John

Could you cite some evidence please?

Thx John that sounds good plz email me I lost your email when I changed to a new hard drive

You can worry no longer about responding to me; Mason has apparently kicked me off all these forums because of my politics. In Mason’s words (in ripdog’s “projecting an image” thread below), “I don’t see a difference” between “what you are saying” and “what your critics say you say.”


The critic in question was Ray Springfield in a post entitled “Alger loves Osama.”


The “criticism” to which Mason was referring read as follows:


“Alger loves Carlos. Alger loves Adolf. Alger believes in a Zionisit conspiracy. The Jews of today don't like to be murdered. Not only do they try not to get murdered these days, they will fight back and win in military affairs. The Algerian philosophy is that they are supposed to passively accept extermination and say thank you.”


This followed a my post of mine that concluded that said nothing about zionism or conspiracies or even Israel at all. It’s esstential if banal point was this: “We should only be concerned with the potential for the abuse of power, such as through mass murder and state-supported terrorism. These crimes should not be mitigated or excused if the actor is a ‘democracy.’”


Rather than delete posts accusing me of being a nazi and genocidalist anti-semite, Mason cautioned: “It's time you defended yourself in an appropriate manner. And remember, insults are not tolerated.”


I was surprised as Mason’s comments, given my repeated supposition that accusing someone of “loving” Hitler would be an insult, and my denunciations of all terrorism, my abject hatred of fascism and nazism, the fact that I have never said a kind word about bin Laden, Carlos the Jackal, or Adolf Hitler, and have never mentioned any “zionist conspiracy,” something that I do not believe exists. Nor, it should go without saying, have I ever suggested that any nation, including and probably least of all Jews, should be “exterminat[ed].”


To make sure Mason understood where I was coming from, I sent him an email reiterating my postion “that Jews have the right to a national state where it presently exists, that Israel has the right to exist within secure borders, and that Palestinian terrorism (or any terrorism) against civilians is an abominable crime.” I also told him that


“I recognize that it is respectable in some circles to try to associate critics of Israel and U.S. support for Israel with anti-semitism. I also assume that many people who do this do so with a certain amount of good faith because their political imaginations are hemmed by the persistent pain and ugliness of antisemitism, or because they believe that such critics at least play into the hands of Jew-haters. I would ask only that you reflect on how painful this feels to the critic when it isn't true.”


(For those happily spared my diatribes, my politics re Israel basically dovetail the postions of the Peace Now and Yesh Gvul movements in Israel).


The full text of Mason’s email response to me was the following:


“I think that it's time you quit posting on our forums. It's clear to me that your purpose is to damage them and we would just appreciate if you would appear no more. Remember their main purpose is to discuss poker and other forms of gambling. MM”


So I guess the technical reason that my license to post has been revoked is that I tried to “damage” these forums by raising topics other than poker on the “Other Topics” forum. I suppose everyone can draw their own conclusion, assuming they’re given the chance.


P.S. I enjoyed sparring with you. I'm sorry that you feel my points are all "inane," sorrier still that you feel the rightfulness of anyone's position regarding some of the most intractable problems in the world are "obvious."

Mason showed some reason. It is unfortuante that you post anti-Semitic dribble and Zionist conspiracy crap. I truly think that you should move out of America. If you stay, you ar bound to be prosecuted sooner or later.

"Do you expect us to be civil - standing idly by and smiling - while you design your brave new world out of our property?"


Even those of us who are conservative and agree with your views on taxation, etc... expect this.

To say that you have been banned is, I think, overstating the case. Mason clearly offered his opinion of what he thinks you should do. I for one have enjoyed most of you posts whether I agreed with them or not. I hope you keep posting.

Chris,


I don't feel all of your points were inane; just certain ones. Nor do I feel that all things are obvious and certainly not some of the world problems we debated. Thanks for some thought-provoking material and I am glad we had a chance to discuss some of it; I did learn some things from your references. Best wishes

It's partly a matter of time; since I feel I soon won't have time to participate nearly as fully as before, I would rather not get wrapped up in further debate on these and other issues.


Sometimes in life we just sense it's time to move on, and now is the time for me to focus more fully on some other things. Again best wishes (even if a few of your points were inane;-); I'm not completely immune to inanity myself either;-))

an unresponded to post. careful, ive got a 'false equivalency' argument all ready.

----------------------------------

'you should learn to read, interpret and write literally'


youre the one arguing by analogy.


but seriously, how is having the US pay a pollution tax by buying pollution credits from 3rd world countries going to help the environment?

--------------------------------

You might be right, I'm not sure. I assume people post here at his pleasure, and he ignored my follow-up requesting more information.


When the moderator of a forum with the power to delete anything requests that you refrain from posting on "these forums" because of your intention to "damage" them, I think it's a pretty strong signal that you risk being deleted, especially when his only specific complaint is that he discerns no difference between what I've written and advocacy of genocide.


Even if I'm not deleted, Mason's evident agreement with Springfield means that anything I say about any topic will be perpetually followed by the usual Springfield insults and name-calling, wishing my family hurt and deprivation, and the other things this person rants about (even wehn the topic has nothing to do with politics) that Mason deems fit to retain and archive.


Mason knows I cen't leave undenied a hundred posts calling me a nazi, and I have no interest in responding to this person, so it's an effective banishment.

what about when they come for your kids?


brad

I'm not talking about "them", I'm talking about the discussions on this forum. What happens when a functionary of a totalitarian state comes to my home to steal my kids and what happens when someone argues a point I disagree with are two vastly different things. I disagree with people on this forum and many disagree with me. What makes it fun is to bounce ideas off of each other and argue. We're not plotting to take each other's kids and civility is necvessary to keep the forum going. What do you read more, this or RGP?

Chris,


I've always assumed that frequent readers of this forum note the absurdity of Springfield's comments, and I'm sure that very few posters here take his side. Of course, he posts under so many different psuedonyms that it might appear some readers actually support him. Besides, you get to the gist of the matter a hell of a lot faster than Chomsky does.


John

I am not designing any kind of world. We are discussing issues and giving opinions. I have often disagreed with M. He never felt he had to resort to name calling. You felt the urge to call him a dunce and a sissy and to call me a communist. You are mistaken on all counts.


Taxes are not stealing. Believing that we should have a government does not mean that control is at the root of my political ideals.


I believe I have a much better idea of what created This Great Nation than you do. I DO NOT BELIEVE MYSELF TO BE SUPERIOR TO ANYONE.


I believe that someone who asserts that Ralph Nader's political program is akin to that of Adolph Hitler is wrong. I believe that someone who cannot discuss politics or political issues without resort to the childishness of name calling is a discredit to this forum.

You've assumed incorrectly. The Attorney General of Colorado, the Colorado Gaming Commission, and the majority of federal law enforcement all agree that internet gambling is illegal. The American Bar Association agrees that licensed attornies shouldn't break the law without being barred from practice. Every American Presidential Administration since the inception of Israel disagrees with Alger relating to the Middle-East.


No law enforcement official in the United States would call America a country of terrorists or that it's leaders are organized criminals. The IRS agrees that paying taxes is required on any income, legitimate or not.


The people that agree with Mr.Alger are people that find Saddam Hussein a hero. People that believe that Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter.

People that believe that suicide bombers acting against civilians display courage and that suiced bombs are an olive branch or peace.


People that believe that numerous wiseguys who are now dead were heros.


Apparently, you agree with Mr.Alger. He posts under numerous aliases. You are not in good company.

You've assumed incorrectly. The Attorney General of Colorado, the Colorado Gaming Commission, and the majority of federal law enforcement all agree that internet gambling is illegal. The American Bar Association agrees that licensed attornies shouldn't break the law without being barred from practice. Every American Presidential Administration since the inception of Israel disagrees with Alger relating to the Middle-East.


No law enforcement official in the United States would call America a country of terrorists or that it's leaders are organized criminals. The IRS agrees that paying taxes is required on any income, legitimate or not.


The people that agree with Mr.Alger are people that find Saddam Hussein a hero. People that believe that Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter.


People that believe that suicide bombers acting against civilians display courage and that suicide bombs are an olive branch of peace.


People that believe that numerous wiseguys who are now dead were heros.

Hi Desire:


First, we don't want to censor anyone. But we do have our rules that we must enforce to keep these forums viable.


When looking at the Alger posts they became clear to me that they were written in an inflamatory matter and their purpose was not to discuss issues, even though some were thrown in, but to disrupt and change the character of these forums. We asked Mr. Alger to tone down his rhetoric, to try to stick to issues, and present his point of view in a polite and professional manner. He wouldn't do that so we took what we feel is appropriate action.


Best wishes and thanks for participating in out forums,


Mason

Yes, it's as Chris Alger describes it. Mason Malmuth has no credibility whatsoever as an impartial and creative webmaster when he admonishes the victim of attacks to "behave politely". Malmuth went as far as endear himself with this website's anonymous flamer, anonymous flamers being otherwise the prime scourge of any decent web board. Serious web moderators routinely disregard WHAT a miscreant says as long as HOW he says it creates problems for the board or other participants. But not Malmuth!


...Why don't I expect any different from fanatics of any stripe? (In this case, the zionist stripes.)

'People that believe that Osama Bin Laden is a freedom fighter.'


this was the official US position (supported by money and material) until very recently.


brad

once i got attacked, i figured i would just post here more often.


brad

I try to make the best decisions I can based on the information I have available. I won't always be correct, but I do try.

brad,


You don't get the concept of "irony," do you? "Raindrops keep falling on Brad's Head."


John

i said i had a double equivalency attack at the ready, didnt i?


brad

n/m

Suppose I'm sitting around at the local pub, a couple friends, a couple waitresses.


So, I "give my opinion" to a waitress that I would like to stick a big black greased dildo up her rectum, and now what is your opinion, Andy?


Can we discuss this like adults?


No name-calling now.


eLROY

Your example is not how the world works either eLROY. There is a fundamental difference between a vulgar proposition to an individual in a bar and somebody holding a political opinion different from yours. The fact they hold that opinion does not mean you can attack them personally, even if the opinion is shared by enough people to become a political reality that causes you harm. People of all political stripes engage in improper attacks on others who disagree with them, and it never helps the situation or sways anybody's opinion. Whether it's the ALF people who attack labs or animal facilities or anti-abortion nuts who assault and kill people, the conduct is inappropriate. Verbal personal attacks are a lesser form of the same conduct. This forum ought not be like a violent street protest, but more like a salon discussion.

I see. My holding political opinions on an internet forum that you don't like is comparable to threatening violence to a woman in a public place. Terrific analogy.

Umm.....this is an "other topics" forum. As far as I could tell, Mr. Alger never posted inappropriately on these forums. I assure you that while Mr. Alger's views may not run in sync with those of mainstream American media, they have a great deal of validity in both academic and international circles. Many of his sources are from well respected human rights groups. He gets called a nazi, an anti-semite and who knows what else by Springfield and HE gets banned? Something here doesn't strike me as quite right.

Listen, when a woman is being raped, and she punches the guy, would you say "it never helps the situation?" Violence is itself a good thing. We are "violent" towards criminals every day. Defining "good" and "bad" is hardly more than sorting between "good" violence and "bad" violence. If you don't have the spine to do this, the people practicing the bad violence take over.


I wasn't talking about a "proposition" or a threat, I was talking simply about an individual expressing a heartfelt opinion about what he would like to do!


The original "salon discussions" in pre-revolutionary France never produced anything but a bunch of socialist garbage. You could say, well, they produced the Physiocrats but, by definition, the Physiocrats didn't need to be produced in order for what they celebrated to exist.


eLROY

Immediate self defense is justified. Responding to violence is OK and sometimes requires extremely violent activity. But When it comes to discussions, you can respond without personal attack. Even the example you give, being "violent" to criminals requires those doing the "violence" to refrain from personal attack or hatred. I have some experience in this regard and can tell you that we can protect ourselves from crimionals without calling them names. Usually a recitation of the horror of their acts suffices and is more powerful than calling them an "idiot" or a "dunce" or something.

What if a bunch of old people sat around in a bar and, upon seeing how firm my biceps were, started bouncing around the idea of how neat it would be if they could extort my labor and sweat to pay their rent and medicine, and lock me in prison if I refused to cooperate.


The only reason anyone pays taxes is because the threat of violence, you dolt. And if this isn't the reason YOU pay taxes, Andy, I'd like to see you check that box and make an extra "gift" to cover the Federal debt, something above and beyond what is required by law.


I tell you, when you arrogant asses start talking about your taxing-and-punishment-and-redistribution schemes, I get more nervous than a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs. At least the waitress can stop wearing short skirts, or find a less exposed job. The only alternative you people give me is to not work at all.


So far as threatening violence, that is EXACTLY what Hillary Clinton promised to doctors who took patients outside of her system. And so far as reproductive rights - the most basic right anyone controls - people in China and elsewhere have no respect for them whatsoever.


So don't go giving me this crap that you respect anybody's rights, just because you wouldn't openly discuss sodomizing a stranger with a greasy dildo. I'd take the dildo night and day for a week if it could get me out of paying taxes.


You're so superior to the plain rapist. But only because enough greedy, jealous, rich-hating ninnies agree you are. That's what's known as "tyranny of the majority," and it happens to women and workers all around the world.


eLROY

The only reason anyone pays taxes is because the threat of violence, you dolt..."


"I tell you, when you arrogant asses start talking about your taxing-and-punishment-and-redistribution schemes,"


eLROY, the above quotes are awful. I generally agree with you that taxes are enforced by violence, which makes taxation for improper purposes wrong. There are some taxes I would agree to pay and others I would not, based on my views about what is a proper, objective government function. But these quotes are so far out of line it is becoming a big problem. Calling Andy a dolt and an arrogant ass is quickly undermining whatever credibility you have.

I responded to one of your posts above before seeing this one. It seemed you were prepared to have a reasonable discussion.


I was mistaken. I will not respond to any of your posts after this one. Your views are so strange to me as to make any meaningful disscussion nearly impossible.


People do sit around and decide things all the time. It's called a representative democracy. Enough people didn't like Hillary Clinton's proposals for national health insurance and it died. This is how a democracy works.


Your labor is not extorted because you have to pay taxes. I may think the government spends too much on defense, and you may think they spend too much on social security, but we are both free to try to change the laws through our elected representatives.


I lived in Santa Monica and was very active in the Santa Monicans for Renters Rights. We were successful in getting through a strict rent control program. I know you'll no doubt be pleased to hear this. Contrary to what you may think, it saved the city. We also encouraged corporations to relocate in the city, provided cultural resources for the citizenry, and raised the wages of the police and firemen. Today the city is a far, far better place to live than it was when "natural evolution" ruled the day. I myself owned rental units there at the time. I did not get an unfair amount of rent for my units. Any idea can be implemented well or less well. The Bronx is a disaster; Santa Monica a success story.


A good portion of your arguments are punctuated by calling those with whom you disagree "dolts" and "arrogant asses" and "ninnies." This is the way my 11 year old likes to argue.


I pay a lot of taxes, over half a million dollars last year. I do it because it's the law and I would risk going to jail if I did not. But I also see the necessity of it to have a government and a society. I dislike some taxes more than others. If the income tax rate were hiked up another 10%, or lowered another 10%, it wouldn't make one bit of difference to my lifestyle. I am in favor of increasing taxes on those who can most afford it and decreasing taxes on those who can less afford it. Others on this forum, HDPM, for example, strongly disagree with me, but have done so with logical arguments, not childish ranting.


The rest of your post strikes me as mindless, vituperative, extreme right-wing babble. Your implicit comparison between a rapist and someone who is not against paying taxes, strikes me a strange, to say the least.


And, yes, I do consider myself superior to a rapist. Requiring people to follow the law is not rape. Paying taxes is not rape. That you cannot understand this is sad. I have had a family member raped and to use this word in the way you are using it is insulting.


Lastly, not that you want my advice, I would suggest two things to you. One, write a book espousing your views. I think people would find it educational and interesting. You might be able to influence people to see things your way and change policies to the way you would like to see them. Second, refrain from name-calling. It turns people off, thereby diminishing your potential audience.


No need to respond, as I won't be reading any of your posts again.

Do you remember Al Gore's greatest speech? It was his concession speech. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


I am truly free to say and speak in whatever manner I want, because I am not trying to sell anybody anything.


Politeness is the hallmark of the professional liar and confidence man, whom I wish to share as little in common with as possible.


I do not wish to pay anybody with sweet compliments to swallow my lies. Rather, if you want to know the truth, you can pay the price of suffering through my use of the word "asses."


eLROY

n/t

I might read eLROY'S posts, but I'm probably done responding as well. I tried, things got worse.


As for Santa Monica, my cousin had a rent controlled apartment near the beach. Maybe you owned it for all I know. We teased him about the PRSM and rent control of course. I'm a hypocrite because I got mad at him for giving it up. Thought maybe the family could keep a little beach getaway around. But he's an LA lawyer so what can you expect?

Some people think ouija boards work - and they may for all I know - but here are the facts, and the science on rent control - hey, wait, I'd bet dollars to dougnuts none of you-pro-rent-control morons will even read these links! I mean, why make the effort to get enlightened at this late date?


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell082100.asp


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell071299.asp


http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/11/10/sowell/index1.html


http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2000/october/ts_facts.htm


http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/01-09/sowell.html


eLROY

You might be interested to know that I had several meetings with Tom Hayden in those days. He was not a member of our organization, but he was in obvious sympathy.


Singularly uninteresting talker and speaker, and very uncharismatic. Lots of our guys could debate circles around him. I sensed he was troubled in those days, who knows what personal problems he might have been having. A couple of my current friends have read his latest book (I think about Irish-Americans or somesuch) and say he's a very interesting writer. Certainly he's led an interesting life and a bio, no matter what one thinks of him, might be a good read. I once read that he and Reagan once were on a 5 hour plane flight together and got along famously. Strange planet. Maybe it was some kind of Irish thing.


The best part of it was that, in his office, he had some great photos he had taken when his then wife (the infamous Ms. Fonda) was filming On Golden Pond. Wonderful pictures of the lake, of Henry Fonda, of Katherine Hepburn. (I remember I hated the movie, but I was younger then.)


BTW, my units were not by the beach, so I wasn't your cousin's landlord. (Mine were near 26th and Wilshire.)

I'm with hetron here, Mason. Can you point me (us) to any particular posts/threads of Chris Algers where you think he stepped out of line? I haven't been reading much on the Other Topics forum in recent weeks, but I've previously always found his posts to be among the most intelligent and though out on this board.


Graham

look, mason is a busy guy. once posters start pestering him via email to start doing things, hes got to do something.


by the way im being completely serious. i mean, masons deleted some of my posts (including one that was probably one of my funniest), and did i say anything? no way! i figure im just lucky to still have chips.


brad

n/t

I am not comfortable with the oft stated opinion that you can do as you wish with this Forum. Technically, of course, it's true but just because you have the power to be arbitrary doesn't make it right or proper. It was fun arguing with Chris. He's smart, he's very well informed and he's highly opinionated. He's wrong but I can't hold that against him.


If he had personally insulted you, David, Ray or Chuck I could understand a unilateral action to uninvite him. After all, this is your place. But, to bar him from stating his opinions and raking muck, well, that simply seems so unnecessary. You've done a terrific thing for the gambling community by starting this website and I hope it's doing well for you and the others. But, many of us, I'm sure, feel very much a part of this extended family so perhaps when something like this comes up you can include us in the discussion before a decision is made.


SammyB.