L. Neil Smith turns out to be a statist asshole

[AntonLee]

I saw the videos of the candles. . . . some would make you think they were setting fire to crosses.  Not really so.  Imagination is a wonderful thing.  Of course, it's one thing to threaten and it's another to actually commit violent aggression as Eli and the state does on a daily basis for a paycheck.

Lawyers invoke law.  The law of the land right now is aggression against those who do not consent to others choosing the rules for them.  They should be lucky that there are only candles and holstered guns (for which I do not know for a fact)

[BobRobertson]

The downstream inheritors of your ideas did not violate the
rules of any contest

Contract?

A sells a product to B under contract.

B violates the contract, making the product available to C.

Has C done anything wrong? No. C violated no contract.

Those "screener" films, where the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences sends films to their members to be ranked and voted on for the "Oscar" awards, are now all encoded so that the "B" member above who rips them and makes them available for wide copying will be known.

And that does not bother me at all. B has a contract, and deserves to be held to those terms.

[sillyperson]

Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.

Bingo, bingo, and ... Bingo.

I see a lot of keeniacs backing away from personal responsibility the moment there could be any consequences to their actions. When there is a credible suggestion that such-and-such protest was a Bad Idea, what response do we get? "That wasn't 'Free Keene', that was a collection of certain individuals" (always, of course, ambiguous as to whether the speaker was in fact one of the "collection of individuals")

How about: "yeah, I was there, and boy was that a bad idea"

[Cognitive Dissident]

He spent a few sentences explaining how mentioning a bcc'd attorney wasn't a threat.

I think he doth protest too much.  I took it as a threat.  But why use bcc at all instead of cc if it isn't intended as a threat?  Whatever.

Maybe it was just a peaceful communication to his lawyer.

If that was a threat, then having a group of people holding fire outside of someone's house is a bigger threat. Do the Keeners open carry when they do that? No one has ever answered my question about that.

Anyway, the Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.

I call BS.  Lawyers practice the application of state-enforced law--they persuade the men with guns to use the monopoly abusive force of government.   You don't need to tell someone you're going to your attorney to get advice--you get advice, from an attorney or wherever.  It most definitely was a threat.  Open carrying, on the other hand, is the practice of prepared self-defense which is the alternative to the ILLEGAL (without asking permission) practice of doing it discretely.  As for the "holding fire" outside people's homes, that's just a silly hyperbolic notion.

[Cognitive Dissident]

The downstream inheritors of your ideas did not violate the
rules of any contest

Contract?

I don't think anyone is sweating the typos at this point since Mr Smith is setting the standard. I'm just as guilty.

Nice piece.

I thought the reference was to the writing contest Neil claims to have lost because someone plagiarized, which was surely disallowed by the rules.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.

Bingo, bingo, and ... Bingo.

I see a lot of keeniacs backing away from personal responsibility the moment there could be any consequences to their actions. When there is a credible suggestion that such-and-such protest was a Bad Idea, what response do we get? "That wasn't 'Free Keene', that was a collection of certain individuals" (always, of course, ambiguous as to whether the speaker was in fact one of the "collection of individuals")

How about: "yeah, I was there, and boy was that a bad idea"

So "personal responsibility" now includes not pissing off someone who immorally threatens to aggress against you if you do not do exactly as they say.  Why?  Because they wear costumes?  Because someone wrote stuff down on paper?  Because some other group of people gave them permission to aggress?

You're slipping.

All that, and the above said, your position of "losing hearts and minds" was at least plausible--too bad you don't have any evidence, other than anecdotal.

[dalebert]

If that was a threat, then having a group of people holding fire outside of someone's house is a bigger threat. Do the Keeners open carry when they do that? No one has ever answered my question about that.

The first couple of vigils had a high attendance, and I honestly can't recall if anyone was open-carrying.  It seems like a reasonable possibility that someone might have as a few free-staters tend to always carry whether they're attending a vigil or buying linens at Walmart.  I can confidently say that most of the people there were not.  After that, many of the vigils just had a few people, sometimes just Richard and me.  Neither of us carries.  Out of concern for our own safety, we always stay on public property and we make every effort possible to make it clear that we are strictly peaceful.  If anyone suggests a vigil that will appear otherwise, they won't have my support for it.

[sillyperson]

If anyone suggests a vigil that will appear otherwise, they won't have my support for it.

The very fact of having a "vigil" in front of someone's home is threatening.

You, Dale, have individually and personally behaved in a manner that virtually any person would consider a threat to their physical safety.

The fact that you are a peaceful (and rather nice!) guy, does not change the fact.

The fact that the people whose homes you were, erm, vigilating, behaved in a threatening manner hours or days previously, does not change the fact.

[Cognitive Dissident]

If anyone suggests a vigil that will appear otherwise, they won't have my support for it.

The very fact of having a "vigil" in front of someone's home is threatening.

You, Dale, have individually and personally behaved in a manner that virtually any person would consider a threat to their physical safety.

The fact that you are a peaceful (and rather nice!) guy, does not change the fact.

The fact that the people whose homes you were, erm, vigilating, behaved in a threatening manner hours or days previously, does not change the fact.

Unless I'm missing something, that's absurd!

[davann]

Keeners seem to have a very high standard as to what constitutes a threat...when it comes to their words/actions.

Bingo, bingo, and ... Bingo.

I see a lot of keeniacs backing away from personal responsibility the moment there could be any consequences to their actions. When there is a credible suggestion that such-and-such protest was a Bad Idea, what response do we get? "That wasn't 'Free Keene', that was a collection of certain individuals" (always, of course, ambiguous as to whether the speaker was in fact one of the "collection of individuals")

How about: "yeah, I was there, and boy was that a bad idea"

Chalk it up to youth. That is what I do. Even in this latest episode of screwing the pooch. There is no doubt in my mind who fucked up first and I will think less of them for it. It is good they put their bad behavior right out in the open. Lets everyone know who can not be trusted.

[Alex Libman]

The downstream inheritors of your ideas did not violate the rules of any contest Contract? I don't think anyone is sweating the typos at this point since Mr Smith is setting the standard. I'm just as guilty. Nice piece.

Thank you.

Yeah, proofreading is a process that reaches a point of diminishing returns at some point, especially around 4am - sometimes you just wanna send what you have and be done with it.  The word "contest" was intentional, however, in reference to his "Little Criminals: The Context of Consent" article's following paragraph:

I've seem [sic] plagiarism before. In ninth grade, I won a short story contest because the guy who "beat" me had typed up something by Robert Scheckley [sic] or Richard Matheson and passed it off as his own. I'm not the one who turned him in, although I had immediately recognized the story. The idiot had to get on the PA system and confess to his crime. Whether it ruined his life forever or was the making of him, I have no way of knowing. I had no sympathy for him because what he did is a crime, in the legal sense but more importantly, in the moral sense, as well.

In this example, the student's foremost "crime" was a violation of the ethical code put forth by the school, since this writing contest obviously expected original material.

[AntonLee]

usually we hear that if you don't want to get arrested, don't break the law.  If you continue to break the law, people come and harm you.

now I say, if you don't want people with candles in front of your home (public property is where they were), stop harming people.  If you continue to harm people, people come and hold candles in front of your house.

hmmm.  Maybe Eli and pigs like him should just stop hurting people.  It's really not that difficult.  It's not even hard to understand.  What is hard to understand?  People standing on public property with candles = threatening.

what a silly and stupid proposition.

[ForumTroll]

Unless I'm missing something, that's absurd!

Sometimes I think Denis is a sockpuppet of Libman.

[Cognitive Dissident]

Unless I'm missing something, that's absurd!

Sometimes I think Denis is a sockpuppet of Libman.

Naw, I'm pretty sure I've met Denis--but that was apparently before the pod people got him and fitted him with a statist restraining bolt.

[BobRobertson]

I've seem [sic] plagiarism before. ...typed up something by Robert Scheckley [sic] 

Thanks, corrections sent. Can't catch everything, didn't know the second, missed the first.