From: Xela@yabbs
To: arachnoi@yabbs
Subject: Psychology class; try it.
Date: Tue Jun 14 01:18:25 1994

If I had your mentality I'd have told you to go fuck yourself blue in the 
face.  But I won't stoop to your level; I see you as a very ignorant 
person, while being quite smug and arrogant.  You are a challenge to me, 
arachnoi, and when I'm through you'll have either quit or have cracked.

That said and done...

"hahahaha, xela, your posts are always such a mix of illogical dribble, 
the temptation to beat you over the head with your own words is 
irresistable."

1.  In the past few messages you have yet to show the illogical nature of 
my arguments.

2.  You have yet to come up with a logical argument of your own.

So the only question in my mind is: Do you know what the fuck a logical 
argument is?

"but then you said 'orignla' cut and paste...this one in here"

1.  You are either blind or illiterate; I made a correction at the end of 
my message concerning that word.  A quick check of that message
will verify the fact.

2.  I don't deliberately go out my way to look illiterate.  Any mistakes I 
make are typographical in nature; this editor doesn't allow for correction 
very easily.  Which doesn't excuse my sloppiness, but it doesn't excuse 
yours either.

"...so you won't have a chance to pretend to some learning...too bad you 
don't apply the same effort to thinking."

1.  Enlighten me then, O Great Lord Muck, and quit digressing with 
insults.

"hahaha, little school boy.  This isn't 'The Young Republicans' this is 
the Anarchy Base, go play with the other teenie boppers."

1.  You certainly assume a great deal about me for one who claims to be 
cognizant of a great deal:
    a.  You were wrong about the political affiliation; I have none.
    b.  You assumed I could make no distinction between the Young 
Republicans and the Anarchy forum.  Wrong again.
    c.  You assumed I was a teenager.  Strike three and you're out.

"I agree that ALL governments and social/economic relations require 
aspects of behavior which limit one's freedom"

So you were agreeing with what I was saying.  Ok, now we're getting 
somewhere.

"...In other words, there is a freedom zero baseline that noone can get 
below...Freedom then becomes a degree of freedom allowed above the 
baseline"

You made the claim that capitalism is the only free system, and now you 
are waffling by saying that only certain levels of freedom exist.  My 
claim is that, by themselves as a philosophic element, capitalism and 
communism do NOT, by any means, qualify as encouraging, or even allowing, 
freedom.  Both use behavior control techniques.

"...Who cares about an intrinsic [baseline] constant that no one can do 
anything about?"

I never brought this up, as I feel that freedom is an illusion, but since 
you brought it up...  If you are to make an argument that certain degrees 
of freedom exist, then you should care about that constant; your argument 
rides upon it!  Without rigorously exposing and defining that mystical 
caonstant, I have only your word that your argument is correct.

Until then, you have some homework to do.

Ta,

X