No Insult Intended???

Sep 18, 06 | 2:21 am by John T. Kennedy

My jaw dropped when I saw Beck trying to sell the idea that he’d intended no insult to Connie Du Toit:

“I cannot believe that anyone who’d heard me say that would have taken it for an “insult”, and besides: if I had intended to give insult, nobody would have mistaken it.

This is a mistake. The matter at hand was far too serious for an “insult” and I wouldn’t have done it. I didn’t do it.

Beck conveniently restricts that analysis to his use of the the word “woman” in addressing Connie Du Toit but that’s hardly the full context of his remarks. You only have to scroll down one post on Beck’s blog to find:

Here’s what: if this woman pretends to stand on her own two feet in a confrontation of ideas, then she should bloody well be able to take her slings and arrows like the rest of us. Especially after such a patently outrageous suggestion.

If she can’t do that, then she should stay in the goddamned kitchen.

The phrase “if this woman pretends to stand on her own two feet” is clearly intended as an insult. Then of course there’s the unfortunate “woman”->”kitchen” slur. Would he ever tell Kim to get back in the kitchen?

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t object to net insults. I dish them out myself.

I was just shocked to see Beck try to walk away from this one in the space of a single blog entry.

150 Responses to “No Insult Intended???”

  1. Billy Beck Says:

    You’re talking about the wrong post, you idiot.

    Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up.

  2. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Billy,

    You wrote:

    “Evidently, Kim is torqued-off over an insult that I am said to have delivered when I wrote the word, “woman”. Among others, there is at least one “sneer” sighting in it, and some dark hints of action.”

    You posted your woman/kitchen insult at 12:12am | Sept 15 06.

    Kim didn’t post…

    And yeah, I get angry when people insult “my woman”

    …until 9:57am , almost 10 hours later. And none of the “sneer sightings” or “dark hints of action” you allude to showed up until that time.

    Do you really think Kim, Connie and at least some of their choir hadn’t seen you insult Connie by then?

    Like I said, your analysis conveniently ignores the full context of your remarks.

  3. Stephan Kinsella (posting as beckabeck) Says:

    Watch out, or Beck will threaten to “kick your ass”.

  4. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Kinsella’s previous comment was originally posted anonymously under the nym beckabeck. I thought the voice sounded familiar so I checked the associated IP address and confirmed that the comment was from renowned legal scholar Stephan Kinsella. No Treason has a policy, of which Kinsella has been personally informed, of restricting commenters to one identity. Thus I corrected the post to show his real name.

    In private email he is now pleading with me to take it down:

    That was an asshole and inappropriate thing to do. Please delete my comment immediately. That guy is seriously demented and deranged, and I believe dangerous.

    And 24 minutes later:

    Kennedy, do you intend to ignore my request? I did NOT post under my name and do not want my name up there associatd with that reply. That fuckhead Beck is dangerous. Please take that post down immediately, if you insist on that silly rule. I of course did not remember the rule.

    Rather than ignore the request I’ve decided, out of a sense of fairness, to post Kinsella’s objections here.

    I bet he remembers the rule from now on.

  5. Stephan Kinsella Says:

    Go fuck yourself, you lowlife asshole. You have shown yourself to be the vile slug everyone things you are. I hope you rot in hell.

  6. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    THAT’S HILARIOUS!! Kudos, JTK - that’s the best laugh I had in weeks!!

  7. John T. Kennedy Says:

    “Go fuck yourself, you lowlife asshole. You have shown yourself to be the vile slug everyone things you are. I hope you rot in hell.”

    Stephan,

    Don’t go away mad….

  8. Candidus Says:

    That’s one for the collection.

  9. John T. Kennedy Says:

    “Fo’ weal.” - Ali G

  10. John Lopez Says:

    Stephan Kinsella wants No-Treason to host material that he considers to be so inflamatory that he won’t even post it under his own name? What a sense of entitlement. Also note how he actually prefaces his request for comment removal with an insult - that’s classy.

    Does he think churlishness gets him better service? Kinsella can probably get a free super-size on his value meal by being an asshole but we’re not under terrible pressure to make him happy here.

  11. Doug_S Says:

    The way you libertarians jump on each other. Must be learned behavior. If you take as a premise that logical consistancy and following doctrine is a great good, then you attack each other for any failings. So Beck is 99.64% closer to your positions than Hillery but you spend three posts attacking Beck. All the revolutions led down this path. Refining ever greater ideoligical purity while cutting out this group or that group, ending in bodies piling up. You are using ideas as a weapon irrespective of their merit.

  12. John T. Kennedy Says:

    You’re mistaking this for a team sport.

  13. John Lopez Says:

    Doug,

    Could you quote these attacks on Beck for me? ‘Cuz I’m not seeing them.

  14. Joshua Holmes Says:

    I always thought Kinsella was just a particularly good troll. Over the past couple of months I’ve come to believe that he’s a genuine headcase.

  15. Kipawa Condor Says:

    That’s going a little too far there, Holmes.

    He wasn’t that good of a troll.

  16. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Kinsella remains a welcome troll; there’s no need to use the past tense.

  17. John Sabotta Says:

    “a sorry thing, clumsy, trite and melodramatic, with stock situations, voluptuous lawyers, unbelievable girls, romantic robbers and trite coincidences.”

    - V. Nabokov, from an interview

  18. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Voluptuous? Kinsella?

  19. Anonymous2 Says:

    Ah, it explains so much. Sabotta is one of those people engaged in “alternative living”. Well, here’s an alternative shout-out to all you jarheaded lawyers out there! Keep up the good (and the crazy) lawyering!

  20. John Lopez Says:

    One of Kinsella’s problems is that he’s gotten spoiled by his crew of backslappers at LRC and can’t really function without a constant stream of attaboys and an edit button. He can trade snark about Tom Palmer or whoever with his buddies in the warm confines of their collective egg sac but he can’t handle an unsanitized environment for more than a few comments.

    This is a rough crowd: the environment we cultivate here typically gives no feedback whatsoever for being right but overwhelming feedback for being wrong. This isn’t a team sport and you will get slugged in the locker room. That’s the exact opposite of LRC, where outright lunacy is met by a tepid response at best or (usually) utter silence by the other bloggers, but a restatement of the obvious gets a three-post pile-on of congrats.

    If I felt like being fair I’d opine that Kinsella might genuinely not know how to respond in this kind of environment. But since I don’t feel like being fair, I’ll just taunt him:

    C’mon, Kinsella, it isn’t like you have any rational expectation that we’ll help you engage in deliberate deception in our comments section, nor can you possibly not know how to handle yourself on the Internet. Get a grip.

  21. James Says:

    “This is a rough crowd: the environment we cultivate here typically gives no feedback whatsoever for being right but overwhelming feedback for being wrong.”

    Excellent point, John!

  22. John T. Kennedy Says:

    It’s fully intended. I don’t want a bunch of suckups slouching about.

  23. Joshua Holmes Says:

    You tell ‘em, Kennedy!

  24. Andy Stedman Says:

    Great comment, Kennedy!

  25. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Wiseasses though, we got those in spades.

  26. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Now that I’ve finally stopped laughing, it’s time for me to ask: Is Beck really such a sick mama as Kinsella claims he is, or is Kinsella just a chickenshit?

  27. John Lopez Says:

    I dunno, how good has Kinsella’s judgement been proven to date?

  28. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    I dunno, how good has Kinsella’s judgement been proven to date?

    Not that good. However, despite being a punk, a bigoted scum, a member in good standing of the LRA, and a notorious troll who rarely makes any sense, he has written some quality essays (1, 2). I can’t help but think that the man is capable of some rational thought.

  29. John Lopez Says:

    Okay, let’s stipulate for argument that Kinsella can write coherent articles for the Mises.org site. How’s his track record in places where he’s submitting content without a chance to edit it?

  30. John T. Kennedy Says:

    I have some knowledge of Beck. Kinsella’s not in any physical danger from Beck for the comment he left here or the emails I posted. Not nearly worth the effort.

    And Kinsella’s original comment may be correct - it is at least possible that Beck will threaten to kick my as at some point.

    But No Treason isn’t going to protect Kinsella’s identity so he can take anonymous shots at Beck.

    And yeah, Kinsella is evidently a chickenshit.

  31. Billy Beck Says:

    On February 1, 2005, I received an e-mail from Kinsella in which he wondered why I could call him an asshole.

    I don’t recall exactly what this is about. What I do know from my archives is that I wrote to him: “Only an asshole would, for instance, post a comment at another man’s blog under his name.” I don’t know, now, what I referred to, but I’m sure that Kinsella and I both knew what I was talking about at the time.

    In a second e-mail, he complained about my “outright lies”.

    That’s when I told him: “You should, just once, call me a liar to my face, you chickenshit punk.

    You let me know when you’re ready.”

    You people can take it from there.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Kennedy: you don’t get to assume “full context” until you’ve seen everything that went into this, and you can’t. You don’t count, son.

  32. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Beck,

    My personal countworthy-ness aside, I restricted my analysis (of the danger Kinsella faced from you) to his comments posted in this thread. And I see nothing in what you’ve just offered to contradict what I said.

  33. Anonymous2 Says:

    It’s the Beckster himself! Man, I wish someone would collect all the comment threads, emails, and blog posts made by JTK, Lynette, and Beck concerning any of the three of them and organize it into a webpage. Then it would make a much more fascinating read!

  34. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Beck,

    That’s when I told him: “You should, just once, call me a liar to my face, you chickenshit punk.

    You let me know when you’re ready.”

    You people can take it from there.

    I hate to be put in a situation where it seems as though I’m defending Kinsella (I’m not, see below), but Beck, you’re a punk and a virtual thug. I say virtual because you don’t have the guts to threaten Kinsella to his face. What would you have done to Kinsella were he to say this to your face? Beat him up? Shoot him? You would have done nothing, being a chickenshit yourself. Threatening via email is easy.

    As for Kinsella, he is a chickenshit for being so afraid of lowlife loser like Beck.

  35. John T. Kennedy Says:

    At least Beck will put his name to anything he has to say about you.

    Nyms have legitimate uses but taking personal shots doesn’t strike me as one of them.

  36. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    I don’t use a nym becaue I’m afraid of Beck or of any other person writing here. I have my own reasons not to disclose my identity.

    You seem to be missing the point, Kennedy. These are not personal shots. Beck is trying to intimidate those who criticize him, and that is not legitimate, with or without a nym. I have never threatened anybody, on this blog or via email.

  37. John T. Kennedy Says:

    “I don’t use a nym becaue I’m afraid of Beck or of any other person writing here. I have my own reasons not to disclose my identity.”

    Really? Sez who?

  38. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    What the hell are you talking about? What’s your problem, Kennedy?

  39. John T. Kennedy Says:

    I don’t take such protestations seriously from a nym.

  40. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Oh, in other words, you don’t judge the argument without knowing the arguer. Very logical and mature, man.

  41. John T. Kennedy Says:

    I’m saying I can’t take this seriously:

    “I don’t use a nym becaue I’m afraid of Beck or of any other person writing here. I have my own reasons not to disclose my identity.”

    …from a nym.

  42. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    I’ve no clue what you’re talking about. What is so hard to understand? What is it that you don’t get? I’ll try again:

    Due to the nature of this blog and the things I write here, I do not wish my identity to be disclosed, for a myriad of reasons. Fear of physical retaliation from Beck or any other person writing here is not among these reasons.

    Clear enough?

  43. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Sez who? How are people supposed to know you’re not, for instance, Kinsella using another nym?

  44. Anonymous2 Says:

    How do you know that Uncle Sam Staples is a nym? Or is he a nym by definition since the link goes to a racecar picture?

  45. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Now you’re just being an ass. You know I’m not Kinsella by my IP address. If I were him, you would have done something about it already.

    Another way is simply to use common sense. You now, reason, logic, you remember those, don’t you? Those who read what I wrote about Kinsella and the LRA would be hard pressed to believe I’m Kinsella.

    Kennedy, if you allow nyms, then don’t bitch about people using them. And if people pretend to be other people, then it’s your responsibility to stop them, as you did with Kinsella.

    Finally, how would people know you’re not Kinsella writing under JTK? Or that Sabotta is Sabotta, or that Lopez is Lopez, etc?

  46. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Anonymous2,

    Simple counting would show you that the object has two wheels and is therefore a motorcycle, not a racecar.

    Furthermore, simple googling will tell you who was Sam Staples, and reveal the cynical sarcasm behind the nym “Uncle Sam Staples”.

  47. Anonymous2 Says:

    Well, racecar, motorcycle, they’re really all the same to me. However I think HTML and XHTML are very different.

    Furthermore, simple googling will tell you who was Sam Staples, and reveal the cynical sarcasm behind the nym “Uncle Sam Staples”.

    Ah, so you’re named after an English cricketer who died over 50 years ago? That clears up everything. By the way, did you read “Walden” in high school? I thought it was very interesting.

  48. John T. Kennedy Says:

    You know I’m not Kinsella by my IP address. If I were him, you would have done something about it already.

    IP addresses are easy to spoof. It’s true I’m pretty confident you’re not Kinsella. Want me explain why?

    “Kennedy, if you allow nyms, then don’t bitch about people using them.”

    I don’t respect the use of nyms for personal attacks and “Beck is chickenshit” qualifies. I won’t allow it from nyms who are contributors at NT, I’d out Stedman, Freely or Condor if they were doing it. But from commenters not associated with the site I allow a lot that I don’t respect. You’ve not broken any rule so I have no reaqson to boot you. You can even do it again, just as you could post any piece of commie nonsense. But in neither case would I be constrained to not criticize behavior that I allow.

    “Finally, how would people know you’re not Kinsella writing under JTK? “

    I’m easy to locate in meatspace by anyone sufficiently interested in verifying the matter. So is Kinsella.

  49. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    So let’s see if I get it: personal attacks under a nym - wrong. Personal attacks under a real name - legit:

    And yeah, Kinsella is evidently a chickenshit.

    - John T. Kennedy

    Beck, bragging like the lowlife punk that he is that he had made a thinly-veiled physical threat against Kinsella - legit. I, calling Beck on his thuggish behavior - wrong.

    Kennedy, you are letting your relationship with Beck interfere with your ability to think clearly and disinterestedly.

  50. John Lopez Says:

    Staples,

    Seems to me that Kennedy hasn’t said your behavior was wrong but merely distasteful.

    Maybe you and K. can come to some sort of agreement as to just what the “chickenshit” pejorative means and then you-all can proceed more clearly.

  51. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Seems to me that Kennedy hasn’t said your behavior was wrong but merely distasteful.

    Yes, that’s basically what I meant.

    Maybe you and K. can come to some sort of agreement as to just what the “chickenshit” pejorative means and then you-all can proceed more clearly.

    It means “coward”, as I understand and use it.

  52. John T. Kennedy Says:

    And I find it cowardly to accuse someone of cowardice while hiding your own identity.

  53. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    This is going nowhere. You insist on being an irrational ass because you apparently know Beck and are taking attacks on him personally. (Personal attacks on NT? We’ve never had that before!)

    I’ll repeat what I think is the crux of this issue and then I quit:

    Beck, bragging like the lowlife punk that he is that he had made a thinly-veiled physical threat against Kinsella - legit. I, calling Beck on his thuggish behavior - wrong.

    If you don’t see the irrationality of this, then I give up.

  54. John Lopez Says:

    Staples,

    It does appear that Kinsella posted a jab at Beck that he wouldn’t have posted under his real name. I suppose that might count as cowardice or chickenshittery, but isn’t cowardice a vice term? I remain unconcerned about this or any other vice Kinsella has, although his playing peek-a-boo and then being outraged at his resulting lack of invisibility is mildly amusing.

    The same can’t be said of Beck, he’s used his real name like a real adult through all of this. So Kennedy’s commentary is at least internally consistent. As has been pointed out, this is a matter of taste: personal attacks from nyms injure Kennedy’s delicate sensibilities. Personal attacks posted under folks’ real names doesn’t, at least not to the same degree.

    So where’s the “irrationality”? Looks more like Kennedy’s got you emotionally upset than you’ve got him on the logical ropes. You could in theory construct an argument against Beck’s behavior but be aware that you’d have to account for Kinsella’s behavior and reasoning on the matter, too.

    Good luck with that! — Spongebob Squarepants

  55. John T. Kennedy Says:

    “It does appear that Kinsella posted a jab at Beck that he wouldn’t have posted under his real name.”

    Kinsella could hardly say so more clearly.

    And Sam assures us that he would not be afraid to publish his jabs under his own name. But it’s genuinely funny that we’re invited to take a nym for his word on this.

    A nym’s word is not his bond.

    I don’t respect nym courage.

  56. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Like menstruating women, you guys are pure emotion, completely devoid of logic, reason, or common sense. Note how you both ignored what I perceive as the crux of the issue, which I shall repeat a second time

    Beck, bragging like the lowlife punk that he is that he had made a thinly-veiled physical threat against Kinsella - legit. I, calling Beck on his thuggish behavior - wrong.

    You have no problems with thuggish behavior, as long as it is practiced by “one of ours” against “one of them”, you collectivist dumbshits.

    You two have degenerated the discussion into a saloon fighty: You said this about me, now get ready for a duel. How mature! You seem to have no issue with Beck being a thug, but, like ten-year-old kids, you gang up on me for not stooping to his level of threats and machoisms. Idiots!

    You are incapable of judging an argument without constant ad hominem mentions that I am not as tough guy as Beck is for using a nym. Morons!

    And Lopez, Dumbass of the Day (although I’m sure Kennedy will put up a fight), quotes what appears to be his source of philosophy and inspiration, but not before telling me I need to account for Kinsella’s behavior:

    You could in theory construct an argument against Beck’s behavior but be aware that you’d have to account for Kinsella’s behavior and reasoning on the matter, too.

    Listen, kid, I have said numreous times that I am not defending Kinsella or taking his side. It is possible, you know, to attack both sides of an argument and agreeing with neither.

    Here’s a summary of your arguments: You attacked my friend Beck and you ain’t no man enough to give him your real name so you two can straighten this like real men. Beck ain’t no coward like you is - he threatens people using his real name! and he ain’t no afraid of a fight! Besides, if you agree with kinsella, then you must be wrong anyway.

  57. John T. Kennedy Says:

    I was wondering when this thread would get back to misogyny…

  58. future lung Says:

    in the year 6,000,00,000, 000,000,000, 000,000,000, 000,000 AD, everything will be better.

  59. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Everything’s coming up roses!

  60. Stephan Kinsella (posting as John T. Kennedy) Says:

    I fucked my sister.

  61. Stephan Kinsella (posting as John T. Kennedy) Says:

    I fucked my sister. But only because my mom wanted to watch.

  62. John T. Kennedy Says:

    NymSkull here has been spoofing comments to look like I made them. Ow.

  63. Stephan Kinsella (posting as FUK) Says:

    From what I hear, Kennedy is a nym, too.

    Staples has it right. Kennedy’s dishonesty is palpable.

  64. Stephan Kinsella (posting as John T. Kennedy) Says:

    I am not a nym! I am a 53-year old post office worker, three times divorced and my “legal” name is not John Kennedy, perhaps, but I have gone by this socalled nym for 8 yrs so am as entitled to it as you are to your nicknames.

  65. Stephan Kinsella (posting as John T. Kennedy) Says:

    Amusing to pull these stunts. Just because I’m a libertarian does not mean I oppose threats of violence. Yabba Dabba Doo!

  66. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Canbdy’s Rebooblic

    A Play in One Act

    [Sean D. Candy and Jean Lo-Bass, old time friends, sit in a pub in Lucifer, Mississippi. Candy is chewing tobacco and Lo-Bass is smoking a cigarette]

    Lo-Bass: I got some bad news, Candy.

    Candy: Whatsamatter, Lo-Bass?

    Lo-Bass: We can’t put gravy on them mashed potatoes no more. We gotta put’em on the side now.

    Candy: Whatcha talking about, Lo-Bass? Why can’t we put them gravy on them mashed potatoes no more?

    Lo-Bass: My friend Jim Cedar told me them maddafuckin Steven Dimzella puts them gravy on them mashed potatoes, so we can’t do that no more. We can’t be like maddafuckin Dimzella! We ain’t no rednecks!

    Candy: maddafuckin’ Dimzella! Them faggots from the Few Cockwell Army always mess up my stuff. I sure hope them assholes don’t put them gravy on them potatoes no more. Tell Cedar to keep us updated.

    [Enter Binnie Peck, a friend of Lo-bass and Candy’s]

    Candy: Howdy, Binnie.

    Peck: Howdy Jean, howdy Sean.

    Candy: What’s going on, Binnie? Whatcha been up to?

    Peck: I just came back from Hell Hole Tavern, my favorite pub. Some maddafucka there called me a chicken!

    [Lo-Bass and Candy gasp in astonishment. The cigarette falls out of Lo-Bass’s mouth.]

    Lo-Bass: He called you a chicken? You ain’t gonna let that pass, now ain’tcha?

    Peck: Whaa’ll be damned if I do! I went to the maddafucka, put ma’gun in his mouth, and told him: why don’t you tell me that to my face, ya’maddafuckin’ asshole? Now you guys can take it from there.

    Candy: You sure showed that faggot whadis like!

    Lo-Bass: The sissy ain’t gonna mess with you no more!

    Peck: Sure won’t!

    Candy: You the man, Peck. Say, why don’t you come write for us? I got me a little newsletter called Bow Season. It’s about anarchy, you know, where there ain’t no laws and stuff and you can just go around shootin’ people.

    Peck: : Yeah, anarchy sure sounds good to me, as long as you keep them maddafucka immigrants out. They ain’t no Americans like we is. Well, I’m off to shoot me some wabbits. So long, fellas.

    Lo-bass and Candy: So long, Binnie

    [Exit Peck]

    Lo-Bass: Boy, that Binnie sure is a great guy. He ain’t afraid of nothing!

    Candy: Yeah, he ain’t like them maddafuckin sissies who ain’t gonna put up a fight.

    [Enter Jim Cedar, a contributor to Bow Season]

    Cedar: Heya, fellas.

    Candy and Lo-Bass Heya, Jim.

    Cedar: I got some good news from Ay-raq. Our fine young men and women killed twenty more of them Ay-raqis today.

    Lo-Bass: Yeah, I read about it. The news said fifteen of’em were mentally retarded kids returning home from a hospital.

    Cedar: maddafacking Ay-raqis, they’re all the same. Maddafuckers attacked us on 9-11. Have you forgotten? [whistles Darryl Worley’s song Have You Forgotten]

    Lo-Bass: I ain’t forgotten nothing.

    Cedar: We gotta defend the Fatherland from them Ay-rabs, folks! We gotta take the fight over there so we won’t fight over here! [pulls out Rush Limbaugh’s newsletter and makes sure he hasn’t forgotten anything].

    Candy: I hear ya, Jim. But I don’t know if we really needed to go to that war, ya know?

    Cedar: Watcha saying, you unpatriotic maddafucka, you ain’t supporting the troops? You ain’t supporting the Commander in Chief?

    Candy: Who’dja call maddafucka, you maddafucka? You ain’t gonna call me names, you fuckin’ asshole. [pulls out a gun]

    Cedar: You maddafcuka leftist, you all is traitors to our country! [pulls out a gun and shoots at Candy. The gun is held upside down, so the bullet hits Cedar in the head. Cedar drops to the floor, dead]

    Candy: Stupid maddafucka ain’t gonna mess with me no more.

    Lo-Bass: [to Candy] You maddafucka! You shot Cedar! Cedar was against Few Cockwell. That means you are for Cockwell! [pulls out a gun and shoots Candy to death]

    Lo-Bass [to himself] : Shit, maddafucka Candy was also against Dimzella. That means I am for Dimzella! Why I’ll be a sonafabitch! [shoots himself in the head]

    [enter Binneie Peck, picking up the bodies of Cedar, Candy, and Lo-Bass, and cooks them all for dinner]

    [exeunt omnes]

    [curtain]

  67. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Sam,

    That’s dumb. Are you the one who was spoofing those comments?

  68. Stephan Kinsella (posting as NymSkull) Says:

    Sam, this is Kennedy. How do you like my alternate Nym? I am trying it out, after all my JTK name is just a nym too. I’m doing this one from my alternate account. I gave myself a new handle, NymSkull, because I, John Kennedy, am a complete numskull. Get it?

    I am getting bored with the same old, same old. So I’m gonna play a part: pretend here like I’m some other nym, then in my JTK identity I’ll pretend otherwise.

    Now watch: in my next comment I will deny this is me, just to fuck with you.

    Come visit me at the post office real soon.

  69. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Kennedy,

    What’s your problem, man? I’ve never spoofed any comments, and I’ve never posted under a different nym.

  70. John T. Kennedy Says:

    The IP associated with the recent comment spoofer (that I dubbed NymSkull) is 66.129.95.152. Drop that in your web browser and you’ll find it’s an anonymous web proxy site named Surfola.

    Coincidentally, Stephan Kinsella lists Surfola as a recommended blog tool on his web site. Considering also Kinsella’s interest in this particular thread, his fondness for sock puppetry, and his general willingness to vandalize discussions he doesn’t like, it’s obvious to me that the Kinsella = NymSkull.

    So in this thread alone Kinsella has now posted as:

    beckabeck
    Stephan Kinsella
    FUK
    John T. Kennedy
    NymSkull

    All of those posts will now be correctly attributed to him.

    For Kinsella,

    You’re supposed to be a libertarian and an Intellectual Property lawyer. How about respecting my property rights by simply following the rules here? You are allowed to post comments under one identity only, in this case your real name.

  71. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Sam,

    “What’s your problem, man? I’ve never spoofed any comments, and I’ve never posted under a different nym.:

    You’ve posted here as Ryan H, and Uncle Sam Staples. In email you’ve also used the handle Sean O’ Sullivan. I was just asking.

    Anyway, it was Kinsella.

  72. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    1. I’ve announced switching from Ryan H. to Uncle Sam Staples on this blog.

    2. The first line in the email I sent you was You know me as Uncle Sam Staples.

  73. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Yep, I know.

  74. Anonymous2 Says:

    How about respecting my property rights by simply following the rules here?

    You can have no property rights over the contents of your blog. They are just magnetic data storage and smtp/tcpip protocols and such, neither of which you can assert a property right over. I’m sorry, but Kinsella has the right to post whatever he wants, wherever he wants, at any time.

  75. John Lopez Says:

    You can have no property rights over the contents of your blog.

    I’m pretty sure he does.

  76. John Lopez Says:

    Staples,

    Looks more like Kennedy and I have got you emotionally upset than you’ve got us on the logical ropes. The “menstruating women” crack isn’t even that original, it’s more along the lines of DeCoster’s homosexual pejoratives than it is the level of insult that we aspire to here.

    “I’m just sayin’, is all.”

  77. John T. Kennedy Says:

    If that’s Kinsella’s moral theory he’s welcome to argue it here: As Stephan Kinsella.

  78. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Lopez,

    You can fiddle with your logical ropes all you want, but the fact is that you guys have a herd mentality (which is, recall, illogical) of defending your friend against an outsider regardless of the facts and the circumstances. You have yet to reply to any of the points I made. Since it was obvious to me that nothing of value would come out of that discussion, I wrote a play describing the herd mentality and behavior of several fictional characters (completely fictional and imaginary, of course. They do not in any way represent real people).

    The menstruating women crack is not even original? You don’t say! I thought I created it! I wish I had the originality and creativity to quote some TV sponge.

  79. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    They are just magnetic data storage and smtp/tcpip protocols and such

    Yeah, so? I cannot own magnetic storage units?

  80. John Lopez Says:

    Staples,

    Doesn’t seem to me that I actually defended Beck, more like I’m just fanning the flame war from the sidelines.

    And I addressed your substantive point a ways upthread.

  81. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Doesn’t seem to me that I actually defended Beck, more like I’m just fanning the flame war from the sidelines.

    In other words, you’re just a bored asshole?

  82. Lynette Warren Says:

    Now that’s the spirit!

  83. Joshua Holmes Says:

    You have yet to reply to any of the points I made.

    You’ve been posting here for a while, and I’ve yet to see you make a point.

  84. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Joshua,

    I can’t teach comprehension. If my very unsubtle points are incomprehensible to you, then maybe you should go practice on something that suits your level better. You know, like Teen Vogue or something. But be careful - don’t make the jump to the real Vogue too early. The learning curve may prove too steep.

  85. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Hey, hey, hey, let’s not get personal.

    (Just kidding, feel free.)

  86. Joshua Holmes Says:

    What you call “subtleness” everyone else calls “incoherence”. Profundity in a universe of one isn’t much for you to go on.

    I do, however, defer to your advanced understanding of teen boy jerkoff mags.

  87. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Now that’s what I’m talking about!

  88. John Lopez Says:

    In other words, you’re just a bored asshole?

    More like amused. As I said, I addressed your substantive point (singular) a ways upthread. You haven’t paid that no nevermind, and that’s fine. We’re always open for business.

    You’ll also note that “asshole” is almost Kinsella-esque in its fratboy clumsiness. Subtler tactics than name-calling include simply waiting for your intended target to step on his own dick and then laughing at him (what Holmes just did to you, f’rinstance) or passive-aggression (giving your target a lesson on how to argue better with you, say). Another good thing to try is to bait your target with something that he can’t emotionally comply with, like inviting him to present a logical argument when he’s spewing insults or asking him to endorse the logical but emotionally unpalatable consequences of his worldview (racism, slavery, whatever).

  89. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Or talking over his head like that?

  90. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Let’s address the NT brain trust one by one:

    Holmes:

    What you call “subtleness” everyone else calls “incoherence”

    Everybody? Have you taken a poll? Was there a vote? And if so, is the majority right by definition? You just used the Argument from Democracy, the most juvenile and fallacious argument one can come up with. If we were in the Deep South in 18th century, would you ridicule me for opposing slavery, since “everybody else supports it”? Your argument amounts to nothing, other than hiding behind your buddies’ backs and shouting No on wants to be your friend! Talk about juvenile!

    Profundity in a universe of one isn’t much for you to go on.

    Again, an extension of the Argunment from Democracy, this time with a twist. Truth cannot be truth, unless your debaters understand it and/or accept it? Grisha Perelman (Google it, why should I do all the work for you?) must be a moron, then, becasue I have no clue what he’s talking about!

    Lopez,

    You’ll also note that “asshole” is almost Kinsella-esque in its fratboy clumsiness.

    Readers, Mr. Lopez presents us with an argument that is distant cousin of Holmes’s Argment from Democracy - the Arguemnt from Kinsella. Recall that a fictional character refused to put gravy on mashed potatoes because another fictional character was doing the same thing. If he does, then it’s wrong by definition, according to the fictional Mr. Lo-Bass. You behave like Kinsella, you may even agree with Kinsella (gasp!), so you must be wrong. Like your friend Starr, you would argue that 1+1=3 if Kinsella dared argue that 1+1=2.

    The rest of your rant, for example the part about emotions, etc, I can just as easily turn that over at you, but I believe I’ve done that already.

    Kennedy,

    Well, you haven’t added anything to the discussion, other than your Kinsellaphobia and false accusations of spoofing.

  91. John T. Kennedy Says:

    What accusation? I just asked.

    Kinsellaphobia?

  92. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Did you really fuck you sister so that your mother can watch? I’m just asking, that’s all.

    I’ll break it down for you: Kinsella - as in Stephan Kinsella.
    Phobia - from the Greek phobos, meaning fear.

  93. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    I’ll try, for the last time, to present my questions to you people. Don’t rush; I want you to huddle, touch paws, ruminate, and try to come up with a coherent response. I’m dumbing the question down so that even Holmes can understand:

    1. Why is it that you seem to find it OK for Beck to make a physical threat against Kinsella? Why do you not criticize him for that?

    2. Don’t you find it duplicitous/insincere/irrational/wrong, and reeking of herd mentality, to attack Kinsella simply because he is overall a bad man and one of “them”, and to defend Beck simply because he is (in your opinion, I’m willing to pretend) a good guy, one of “ours”?

    This is the fourth time, I believe, that I pose these questions. Lopez has not responded to these quetions, despite claiming that he has. Holmes probably could not understand them, and Kennedy seems to have his head so deep in Beck’s ass that he could not hear them. Do you best, guys.

  94. John T. Kennedy Says:

    “Did you really fuck you sister so that your mother can watch? I’m just asking, that’s all.”

    My question was not nearly so unreasonable, nor was it intended to offend. I was not accusing you but it seemed a possibility, since you seem pissed off and you use nyms, so I asked.

    “I’ll break it down for you: Kinsella - as in Stephan Kinsella.
    Phobia - from the Greek phobos, meaning fear.”

    I know that; I just can’t imagine why you think I’m afraid of Kinsella. I find him very entertaining.

    As to your questions:

    1. What was the threat *exactly*?

    2. Kinsella’s been abusing his commenting privileges right here in this thread, Beck has not. I don’t think a reasonable reader could think I’m shy about criticizing Beck.

  95. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    1. What was the threat *exactly*?

    Don’t play coy with me. The last three times I asked this question, I said that it was a thinly-veiled threat. This time, as I mentioned, I dumbed down the language so that Holmes can understand. Therefore, I avoided using big words like “thinly-veiled”. Again, you weasle your out of answering the question.

    2. Kinsella’s been abusing his commenting privileges right here in this thread, Beck has not. I don’t think a reasonable reader could think I’m shy about criticizing Beck.

    That’s exactly why I asked you guys to not rush and huddle first. What the hell does your reply have to do with my question? Read my first question again, then read my second question again, then look for the relation between the two, and then try to answer again. I broke it down to two questions to help you guys, but if you find it helpful, I’ll put the two together to make it easier for you.

  96. Joshua Holmes Says:

    Problem 1: It’s called the Fallacy of Popularity, not the Fallacy of Democracy. If you’re going to accuse me of logical fallacies, you could at least take the trouble to get the name right. It’s not like you can’t google it in 25 seconds or anything.

    Problem 2: There’s no fallacy of democracy [sic] because this is opinion, not fact. This isn’t a logical argument; I’m taking you out behind the woodshed. Take note.

    Problem 3: You’re an Insignificant Internet Goof, not a misunderstood genius. Comparing yourself to a mathematician is the best belly laugh I’ve had all week. What next, is this flamewar practically a crucifixion? Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!

    Two additional tips:

    1. Repeating a lame insult makes it no less lame.

    2. Saying “I’m dumbing it down for you!”, when you’re being smacked harder than Ike hitting Tina, makes you look ridiculous.

  97. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    I called it the Argument from Democracy, not the fallacy of democracy, because that’s what I choose to call it. Unlike you, I don’t need to google a fallacy’s name to recognize it. I have comomn sense. I don’t need to read a textbook on logic to use it.

    Now, you said What you call “subtleness” everyone else calls “incoherence”. Why do you feel the need to invoke what everybody else thinks? (and where do you get the temerity to claim to know what everyone thinks? But that’s a different issue). Why not say “you are incoherent because…”? The answer is, because you don’t have anything of substance to say, other than to side with your buddies and feel a part of something.

    I knew you’d fall into this trap, and I considered adding “not that I compare myself to Perelman”, but I figuref I’d let you embarass yourself. The point is not that I’m Perelman, but that the fact that you cannot undestand him does not make him wrong. The fact that you cannot understand me does not make me wrong. That’s was my point.

    I’m being smacked by whom? You and your buddies? None of you have responded to my questions yet. I may use insults but I also speak to the point. You have yet to make any sense. I don’t use logical fallacies. My points may be presented in a rude fashion, but they are valid nonetheless. I’m still waiting for answers to my questions.

  98. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    By the way, a Google search for “argument from democracy” returns 813 hits. A search for “fallacy of popularity” returns 1,020 hits. It seems that a term I came up with by myself (although it obviously existed before I came up with it) is used slightly less than a term you had to look up. Now since you made such a big deal about the terminology and googling, you are the one who ends up looking like an idiot.

  99. John T. Kennedy Says:

    “The last three times I asked this question, I said that it was a thinly-veiled threat. “

    And what’s behind the veil? The supposed threat is conditioned on Kinsella personally getting in Beck’s face, which won’t happen. I’m underwhelmed.

    “What the hell does your reply have to do with my question? “

    It simply lays out the reasons for my observed behavior, ignoring some of the false premises embedded in your question.

  100. Tim Starr Says:

    Gee, whaddaya know, Klansman Kinsella’s just as thin-skinned over here as he is elsewhere. Guess he’s not so tough when he’s not threatening to sue me for defamation. Some “anarchist,” who runs and hides when he can’t rely upon the armed might of the State (or his paleocreep pals) for backup.

    Run away, Klansman Kinsella! Go read more of John C. Calhoun’s rationalizations for the constitutionality of slavery, or watch “Birth of a Nation” a few more times.

  101. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the Holmes went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the Lopez expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

  102. Anonymous2 Says:

    Gee, whaddaya know, Klansman Kinsella’s just as thin-skinned over here as he is elsewhere.

    See, this is what I’m talking about. Tim Starr has the absolute right to post whatever he wants, wherever he wants, at any time. Despite the extreme childishness of making Naziesque comparisons of his opponents, moreover.

  103. John Lopez Says:

    Staples,

    Lopez has not responded to these quetions, despite claiming that he has.

    I did. The substance of your charge against Beck is that he’s a coward:

    …Beck, you’re a punk and a virtual thug. I say virtual because you don’t have the guts to threaten Kinsella to his face. What would you have done to Kinsella were he to say this to your face? Beat him up? Shoot him? You would have done nothing, being a chickenshit yourself. Threatening via email is easy.

    I pointed out that cowardice was a hollow accusation right here: “I suppose [Kinsella’s behavior] might count as cowardice or chickenshittery, but isn’t cowardice a vice term?

    The question’s rhetorical, “coward” of course is a vice term. You’ve accused Beck of having a vice.

    You behave like Kinsella, you may even agree with Kinsella (gasp!), so you must be wrong.

    I was addressing the style of your insults, not their substance. Insults by definition have no substance and so can’t be “wrong”. However, they remain almost Kinsella-esque.

    Like your friend Starr, you would argue that 1+1=3 if Kinsella dared argue that 1+1=2.

    Seems to me I just cited Kinsella approvingly right here. I don’t have a problem with agreeing with Kinsella when he’s right.

  104. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Wait a minute; JOSH IS GAY??

  105. Joshua Holmes Says:

    Please, if I were gay I’d be out getting ass instead of teaching Uncle Slappy how to flame.

  106. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Carry on then.

  107. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Lopez,

    Your inability to comprehend is almost occult:

    The substance of your charge against Beck is that he’s a coward:

    And then you quote the substance of my charge:

    …Beck, you’re a punk and a virtual thug.

    Punk and thug, Low-Pass. Not coward. The coward remark was just throwing back the cowadice charge back in his face; It was not the main thrust of the argument. The rest of your blather still did not address my questions.

    Holmes,

    Funny that this began with you accusing me of not making a point. I’ve done nothing other than trying to instill points through your thick skulls. You, on the other hand, have contributed nothing to the discussion other than smart aleck remarks and some idiotic jab about terminology that ended up backfiring. Of course, your butt-buddies there would never call you on anything, since they cannot turn against one of their clansmen, so you don’t even see the idiocy of your charges. Get back to me when you have something meaningful to say.

    Kennedy and Holmes,

    Wait a minute; JOSH IS GAY??

    You guys don’t read much, do you?

    Kennedy, Lopez

    Didn’t the two of you squeak something about cultivating an environment that gives little positive feedback, etc? If you got your heads out of each other’s asses, you’d see how pathetic this claim looks now.

  108. lung Says:

    lung has no ass. lung has no provacative openings*

    beware.

    lung,
    small implacable creature

    *a long time ago when clintor was president lung found a top secret report with sticky pages under a couch in the oval office. it was a top secret magazine about girls who eat ass-sucking jocks (!) (?) lung does not understand what the report was about. maybe clintor was trying was trying to find osama bin laden in the magazine and he forgot about it. lung is a helpful little lung. clintor was at a press conference and lung gave him back his ass-eating report so the bolsheviks wouldn’t find it.

    in the back of the report were advertisements for inflatable girls. lung is a undifferentiated nuclear girl so lung thought maybe these were sisters of lung. lung loves all strategic weapons! lung loves big brother b52! but lung does not understand inflatable lung. the ads say inflatable lung has three provocative openings. what is a provactive opening? can it be used for counter-city exchanges? lung asked her friend herman kahn but he didn’t know. lung has no provacative openings.**

    later clintor deployed (1) inflatable lung in his office. it just sat around lokig surprised at everything. when clintor wasn’t around lung tried to talk to inflatable lung but she didn’t have much to say. it is sad when a weapons system doesn’t work but only trw can make a lung.

    **grown-up lung (there is only one grown up lung. she looks like mitzi gaynor but she is really a lung!) told lung that grown-up lung has provacative openings, kind of but grown-up lung wouldn’t tell lung anything else except that it was sad that men came apart too easily. (? lung does not understand) icky! they only made one grown-up lung and they didn’t want to make anymore after a couple of accidents (?)

  109. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Please, if I were gay I’d be out getting ass…

    Why do you assume that gay men have low standards and bad taste?

  110. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Holmes was probably being over-optimistic there, yes.

  111. John Lopez Says:

    Punk and thug, Low-Pass. Not coward. The coward remark was just throwing back the cowadice charge back in his face…

    Aren’t those just pejoratives? What’s the substance there?

    Didn’t the two of you squeak something about cultivating an environment that gives little positive feedback, etc?

    Doesn’t seem to me that anything positive has been said, here.

  112. John Lopez Says:

    Staples,

    Of course, your butt-buddies there would never call you on anything…

    Gotta ask: are you really Karen DeCoster posting under a nym? Note the similarities:

    Oh yeah, and his butt-buddy (see 10/27 comment at 9:08pm) apparently thinks he’s saving face by calling me to the carpet for not attacking Tom DiLorenzo, because Mr. Butt-Buddy hates DiLorenzo and his pro-states’ rights viewpoints.

    If you disagree with me you’re a faggot! Faggots hate states’ rights! Fags don’t recognize my intellectual superiority! Faggety-fag-fag! Ya big fag.‘ — Karen DeCoster/’Uncle Sam Staples’/South Park’s Mr. Garrison (maybe) [Edit to add: Not a real quote: see footnote]

    [Edit to add: This footnote has been brought about by the heartrending complaint immediately below this post. The above “quote” in bold isn’t really from Karen DeCoster, the pseudonymous “Uncle Sam Staples” (or whatever s/he is calling him/herself when you read this), or even from South Park’s Mr Garrison. It’s a mean (heartless, even) joke at the expense of people who have used (only at extreme provocation, naturally) male homosexuality as a pejorative term against the contributors to No Treason.

    Does this mean that I judge that the folks who use terms such as “butt-buddy” might really be repressing their own homosexuality, as South Park’s Mr. Garrison was? Does this mean that DeCoster and “Staples” argue like a cartoon character? Does this mean that I’m not taking the matter as seriously as some people think I ought? Does that mean this “footnote” is really just another cruel joke? ]

  113. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    See, this is one reason I use a nym. You dirtbag just put my nym under a quote I have nothing to do with, have never read/written/been aware of, and that in no way represents my views. If I were using my real name, I’d have to reply by getting my own blog, putting your name, picture, and home address there, posting the most vile racist and bigotted junk there, and marking it as a direct quotation from you. Since I don’t support defamation of character lawsuits, that would have been the most appropriate reply. But, what a hassle! And then you and Kennedy whine about me using a nym. If you have any sense of decency whatsoever (and highly doubt you do), you’d remove my nym from this quote.

    Now, I want you and your butt-buddy (there, I said it again) Kennedy to look over all my posts to date, and tell me whether it makes sense that I am DeCoster (who, if I recall correctly, is a Rockwell character), Kinsella, or whomever else you idiots accused me of being. That’s what I meant by Kinsellaphobia (although I now realize it should have been Rockwellophobia): The constant, pervasive, unrelenting fear that anyone posting here is an undercover agent of Rockwell.

    You are a weasel and a scum, Lopez. When I attack people, I do it in a direct, straight-forward manner. I do not post vile shit from vile pieces of shit and attribute it to them.

  114. John Lopez Says:

    I’m noting that you and DeCoster both use male homosexuality as an insult: “butt-buddy” is a common derogatory term for male homosexuality. That’s pretty well indisputable.

    If you weren’t so overwrought you’d recognize that the last “quote” in bold was a joke that pokes fun at you and DeCoster’s said homosexual pejoratives by comparing them to a South Park character who rants about fags and ironically is a homosexual. Want me to footnote the comment with something that explains this all in detail? [Edit to add: never mind, I did anyway.]

    The constant, pervasive, unrelenting fear that anyone posting here is an undercover agent of Rockwell.

    I can assure you that fear doesn’t enter into it.

    When I attack people, I do it in a direct, straight-forward manner.

    … From right behind your nym.

  115. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    “Butt-Buddy”, as I use it, has absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality. It means, as I use it, a sycophant who kisses his buddies’ asses constantly (hence butt buddy), never criticizing and always fawning. Whining “Bigot!” is one of the identifying marks of someone who cannot argue reasonably.

    In the TV series Oz, Butt-Buddy is used to describe an inmate’s bitch, someone who is another inmate’s slave and must do as he’s told. There it included sexual slavery, but was not restricted to it.

    Now, do you want me to append this as a footnote everytime I use the term butt-buddy? Nay, I’ll just make life easier for all of us and find another term to describe the symbiotic relationship among you NT staffers.

  116. John Lopez Says:

    It means, as I use it, a sycophant who kisses his buddies’ asses constantly (hence butt buddy), never criticizing and always fawning.

    Does that fairly describe the interactions of the NT staff among themselves? How much “fawning” do you see going on here? Got an actual citation for the same, outside of your fevered imaginings?

    Whining “Bigot!” is one of the identifying marks of someone who cannot argue reasonably.

    You’ve mistaken amusement for whining. Of course, it’s far easier to smear your opponents as being thin-skinned than it is to admit that they’re making jokes at your expense. If you really thought I was whining about bigoted terms you could point out my usage of the term “wetback” and the fact that it has racist overtones to it.

  117. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    I must give credit where credit is due: You’re really good at being a weasel, Lopez. You switich masterfully between pretending to be serious and pretending to be joking. You whine about personal attacks, pejoratives, and bigotry and then use those yourself, accusing the other side of being thin-skinned. You are an artist at switching the subject when it is convenient, then returning to it when it is safe. Plus, you are surrounded by assholes who would never call you on or criticize you for anything, and so you feel right at home amongst your buddies. I cannot beat you being a weasel, and I won’t try.

  118. John Lopez Says:

    If I were really being a weasel, you could find a couple citations to back up your claim.

  119. Anonymous2 Says:

    If I were really being a weasel, you could find a couple citations to back up your claim.

    The standard Lopez rejoinder to any accusation. :)

  120. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Does that fairly describe the interactions of the NT staff among themselves? How much “fawning” do you see going on here? Got an actual citation for the same, outside of your fevered imaginings?

    Feel free to remind me when was the last time you and Kennedy disagreed with each other or criticized each other or each other’s views.

    You want citaions showing you’re a weasel? You and and Kennedy revert to the idiotic accusation that I’m using a nym anytime you have nothing better to say. The whole discussion on Beck was weaseled off topic when you and Kennedy somehow changed the topic to me using a nym. What’s interesting is that if I were only using the nym, say, Albert Smith, you’d have no case whatsoever, since I could have claimed that that’s my real name.

    And how the hell should I know John Lopez is not a nym? I’ve never seen a photo of you. You never publisehd any identifying details about you, so far as I know. Even if that’s your real name, having a name like John Lopez without furnishing other information is hardly different than using a nym - there are probably thousands more with that name. You could, for instance, post under you full name, including your middle name. Why don’t you do that?

  121. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Oh, snap!

  122. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Anon2,

    The standard Lopez rejoinder to any accusation.

    Speaking for myself, I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with charges like “NT is paranoid about LRC” when I can’t imagine how someone came to that conclusion.

  123. Stephan Kinsella (posting as Jon Kynedy) Says:

    From what I hear, JTK is a nym too. And a limpdick faggit, to boot.

    [posted via the anonymous proxy shysurfer.com]

  124. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Hehe, what did you feel the need to edit your comment? Were you worried it would look too weird? “I don’t pretend to speak for Lopez, although of course I do since we share a brain”.

    Kennedy, is “John Lopez” just a sock puppet you use? Does he play Mr. Hat to your Mr. Garrison?

  125. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Someone reached the site recently via google and the search string “josh is gay”. Sorry for the confusion Josh.

  126. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Hey Kennedy, put “Lopez” back on.

  127. Joshua Holmes Says:

    It’s good to see my homosexual fanbase is helping The Cause.

  128. Anonymous2 Says:

    Speaking for myself, I don’t know what I’m supposed to do with charges like “NT is paranoid about LRC” when I can’t imagine how someone came to that conclusion.

    I think it’s because NT as a whole seems to give Lew Rockwell & Co. more attention than they would seem to merit given their status in “the movement”. However, if Lew Rockwell actually is a fairly widely-known libertarian then I guess I might be wrong. I for one was barely aware of his existence until you wrote articles criticizing Hoppe and Rockwell.

  129. John T. Kennedy Says:

    I don’t care about any movement. And what does any of that have to do with being paranoid about LRC?

  130. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    I don’t care about any movement. And what does any of that have to do with being paranoid about LRC?

    “Lopez”, is that you? How does that symbiosis work - do you switch personalities randomly, or do they exist simultaneously within you? Does “Lopez” have a middle name? Can we see a photo of him?

    I’ve noted something interesting - when you write as Kennedy, you have a weasel-ish, shameless habit of editing your own comments without leaving a note that a change was made. You know, like you did with with the comment that started “I don’t speak for Lopez”, which you then changed to “Speaking for myself”. When you put your Mr. Hat on, a.k.a. “Lopez”, you do leave a note when you edit comments. Not to be too psychoanalytical, but does that point to some inner conflict within your sick mind, a kind of a highly pathetic William Wilson-like struggle?

  131. John T. Kennedy Says:

    True story: A couple of days after this thread began, Sam here began emailing me asking if he could submit articles for No Treason.

    I put him off politely; it wasn’t going to work out.

  132. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Yes, true - on both accounts: I indeed emailed you and it indeed wasn’t going to work out. My mistake for trying to instill some reason into this mess.

  133. Uncle Sam Staples (claiming to be Stephan Kinsella) Says:

    And while we’re at it, I might as well confess: I am, indeed, Stephan Kinsella. This was all part of the Vast Rockwellian Conspiracy to infiltrate the NT Brain Trust. I was going to become a contributor and then detroy this blog from within, because I, Karen DeCoster, want to… Wait a minute, am I Kinsella or DeCoster? Or maybe I’m Hoppe? Or Rockwell himself?… the ghost of Rothbard? … of Mises?…

  134. Ghost Says:

    How dare you claim to be the ghost of Rothbard? I am the ghost of Rothbard!

  135. John Lopez Says:

    You never publisehd any identifying details about you, so far as I know.

    Okay, fine: I’m Hispanic.

  136. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Where have you been these past few days? Did Kennedy have you dry-cleaned?

  137. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Wait a minute, Lopez is Hispanic??

  138. John T. Kennedy Says:

    Once again Beck takes issue with Kim, but once again Connie takes the brunt of the criticism.

    And neither of the DuToit’s is saying anything Ann Coulter or any other conservative wouldn’t.

    Connie’s a “commie in half-assed remission”?

    No, actually they’re both proud collectivists with no intent of recovering.

  139. John Lopez Says:

    Should I assume that this is being backed up?

    (Probably not. Anyhoo.)

    DuToit isn’t being anything now that he ever wasn’t before, and there’s never been a rational reason to think he’d change his spots. I laid this out for Beck a good year before the DuToits got around to shit-canning him from their site.

    Beck’s indignation that DuToit continues, in the face of logic and reason, to behave like the collectivist weasel that he is is amusing bordering on sad.

  140. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Sad? I’ll give you sad, “Lopez”. Now this is sad! To lose a championship like that… God damn!

  141. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    UN-BE-LIEVE-ABLE!!!
    If that doens’t bring tears to your eyes, then you’re not a human being (unless you’re Holmes, in which case you’re not human notwithstanding…)

  142. John Lopez Says:

    Staples,

    That counts as threadjacking. Don’t do it again.

  143. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Kennedy,

    Since it’s your blog, even when you hide as “Lopez”, I’ll respect your wishes. Having said that, go fuck yourself, as this is done all the time by Sabotta and does not seem to bother you.

  144. John Lopez Says:

    Oddly enough, I use my real name on the Internet like a real adult. Having said that, it’s obvious I don’t intend to enforce this rule against Sabotta.

    Don’t like it? Tough shit.

  145. John Sabotta Says:

    I was taking to a friend of mine who used to be in the independent distribution business (now retired) that on those occasions when someone he knew had a business disagreement with someone else in the independent distribution business, he would always stick by that person and try to work the disagreement out.

    The only exception, he said, was if he knew somene who had “pissed off the Mexicans”.

    “In the first place” he observed “if you pissed off the Mexicans than it’s your own damn fault. You did something wrong. If they’re mad at you, it’s because you tried to rip them off.”

    “And in the second place, if you pissed off the Mexicans, I don’t want to know you, man. I don’t want you anywhere near me. There ain’t nothing I can do for you. Sorry, pal.”

  146. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Oddly enough, I use my real name on the Internet like a real adult.

    Sure you do, Kennedy. I am still waiting for the photo or the middle name of your alter ego.

  147. John Sabotta Says:

    The thing is, Staples, they like me better than they like you.

    ha, ha.

    (also, there’s lung)

  148. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Sabotta -

    I know that. As for lung, I’ll just take your word for it.

  149. John Lopez Says:

    I am still waiting for the photo or the middle name…

    A photo and a middle name? You’ll end up on an MSNBC Special Report yet, Staples.

  150. Uncle Sam Staples Says:

    Kennedy,

    Funny how you quote this:

    I am still waiting for the photo or the middle name of your alter ego.

    (emphasis added)

    and then write this:

    A photo and a middle name?

    I guess your level of logic has not ascneded to the heights of distinguishing and from or… All I asked for was one of the two…I guess that’s too much to ask from a “real adult”.

Leave a Reply