[R-G] Moderator's Note

[Mark E. Smith]

I guess that's why I didn't include you with aaron, Gary, dean, and Razer.

I get tag-teamed like that and I gotta dig myself out of the pile.

So I apologize and I thank you for stepping forward, peripatetic.

Nine years and I can't believe there are still people who accept the Arabs
with box-cutters story, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and then,
because they've bought into a lie, reject any evidence that doesn't support
that lie.

It's probably been about five years since the last time I ran into people
like that. I'm like, whoa! This some kinda time warp or what?

Yeah, about five years ago, some folks I know stopped calling anyone who
mentioned unreliable and unverifiable voting machines "conspiracy
theorists," and formed a group to push for election integrity. I'd been
talking about the problems longer than most, so they put me on their board.
But they removed me because I wouldn't take off my "9/11 = INSIDE JOB!"
button when we had a press conference about the problems with voting
machines. They felt it detracted from their credibility. And the Truthers
thought that the election integrity people were imagining things. It took
another couple of years before I was finally able to get some of the people
in both groups to realize that the other group had also done their homework.
Even now, whenever I go to a meeting, march, rally, protest or whatever, and
see them greeting each other with smiles instead of backing away, and
speaking to each other with respect, it fills my heart with joy because I
know how hard it was to make that happen.

The truth doesn't always set us free, but it sure can wake us up to the fact
that we're not. ;)

--Mark



On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 1:12 AM, peripatetic <barmy_basket at yahoo.es> wrote:

> Mark: you are arguing with the wrong guy.
> I have been on your side all along.
>
> The guy who said that truth is divisive is not me. I just replied to him
> why it is the case to be truthers.
>
> :-)
>
>
>
> Mark E. Smith wrote:
> > But your argument was that exposing the truth causes unneeded argument.
> You
> > were insisting that we shouldn't expose the truth because it diverts
> > everyone's eyMares from the prize.
> >
> > Now you're rephrasing my argument, which is what you were arguing
> AGAINST.
> >
> > Read your own post below. See the contradiction, dude?
> >
> > Oh, and I read Orwell for the first time not long after it was published.
> >
> > Have you read *The Shock Doctrine* by Naomi Klein, or *Rogue State* by
> > William Blum?
> >
> > How about *A Terrible Mistake*, by H. P. Albarelli?
> >
> > So which side are you on, peripatetic?
> >
> > Do you want the truth exposed in order to try to stop the perps from
> false
> > flagging again and again?
> >
> > Or you do you want people to stop trying to expose the truth because it
> > causes needless arguments and takes everyone's eyes off the prize?
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rad-Green mailing list
> Rad-Green at lists.econ.utah.edu
> To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
> http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/rad-green
>