Newcomer/Oldtimer Engagement and Rapprochement

[Pelanor Eldrich]

Carolyn,

We appreciate and welcome all newcomers here. I believe the CDS values and favors openness and diversity. We want to make you feel at home and want you to stay by making this a place for you to feel comfortable and fun and interesting, as well as furthering your in-world aspirations.

Please let us know what we can do for you. Any citizen can IM Claude Desmoulins (faction leader of the DPU). I'm also happy to receive email to [email protected] and am available for gmail sporadically during office hours EST.

[Carolyn Saarinen]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":r2s5bnhn]I see I should further explain myself. I DID use qualifiers; 'hardcore'. [/quote:r2s5bnhn]

If you meant your remark to apply only to Goreans, why not phrase it as such? Why mention D/s in general with or without the meaningless qualifier 'hardcore'. Next time I'm at the BDSM Forum, I'll see if anyone knows what that means.

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":r2s5bnhn]Here, I was referring to people of similar mindset as those Goreans; I've ran into a few. Those who do not confine D/s to a lifestyle they enjoy, but actively preach it as the only way someone can be a fulfilled human being. I'm mindful of one who said something like "Everyone's dom/sub, there's just those who realize this and those who are fooling themselves".

Does this accurately describe you? Not a "I happen to like to live like this", but "I believe YOU need to live like this"? Then yes, you'd be correct, and I do not apologize. [/quote:r2s5bnhn]

You are describing Goreans here - and probably not all Goreans. I have already pointed out - for the benefit of those CDS officials who can't be bothered to meet me in person - that I am not Gorean. Indeed I could not be. Once again, I point out that you did not limit your remark to Goreans.

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":r2s5bnhn] I'm not telling you how to live your life[/quote:r2s5bnhn]

Merely proposing that I be sanctioned for doing so in certain ways.

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":r2s5bnhn]As for my feelings on homosexuals... well, that's one of the stranger accusations to throw my direction. I've never been one for self-hatred.[/quote:r2s5bnhn]

It was not an accusation as you know, but a question. Kindly refrain from cheap rhetorical tricks.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":l76hgghl]I am not stressed, but I am concerned. What I [i:l76hgghl]said[/i:l76hgghl] was:
"Oh, and a hint to faction leaders: Public expressions of your disgust for my sexual orientation will not win you my vote, and I [i:l76hgghl]do[/i:l76hgghl] vote."

That seems to me to be a perfectly justified position for a citizen of a democracy to take. One might almost be surprised that it excited comment at all. Instead, I find myself obliged to make ever longer and more detailed defences of my position against a series of antagonists, apparently determined to browbeat me. Whatever anyone's intention, the message this sends to me, and probably other newcomers is: "Mind your place and shut your mouth or prepare to be ganged-up on."[/quote:l76hgghl]Of course you're entitled to take that position. But did you really think that it would not provoke a comment, at least from the person whose position you misrepresented?

The reason why I responded was that you went on to make a number of questionable assertions:
[list:l76hgghl]*that d/s is a sexual orientation like homosexuality
*that some people were saying that d/s lifestylers should be excluded from CDS citizenship. (Actually the quote was "should we now welcome all Goreans and hardcore D/s lifestylers?" which is a question not a statement and Aliasi has clarified what she meant)
*that the expression of such opinions amounts to a contravention of the LL Terms of Service. (Since d/s is not a sexual orientation I disagree with your analysis, that's why I said you misquoted it. And a contravention of the ToS does carry potential sanctions. Misquoting it in this fashion is, in my opinion, an attempt to muzzle people who are critical of d/s lifestyles.)
*that any relationship is, to some degree, a dominance/submission relationship[/list:u:l76hgghl]
You now go on to claim:
[list:l76hgghl]*that a refusal to equate d/s with homosexuality is the kind of hair-splitting engaged in by homophobes.
*that people not involved in d/s relationships can't possibly understand them[/list:u:l76hgghl]Since I disagree strongly with all of these opinions why should I not be allowed to say so? What you are saying to me is "Even if you disagree with what I say, shut up and don't question me. You have no right to question my lifestyle." Sorry to disappoint but that isn't going to work with me.

[michelmanen]

Pat wrote:

[quote:oarthe6s]long-time citizens who had missed the debate on the Judiciary returned to find the Constitution had doubled in length and a new institution had been granted sweeping powers over their Second Lives and property.[/quote:oarthe6s]

Its called fairness, equality and the rule of law. I can understand why a small group of oligarchs used to getting their way all the time because 4/5 of the rest of their community's citizens are ignored except at voting time once every six months might object strenuously and use all means at their disposal to stop such a process from being carried out.

[quote:oarthe6s]It was not only our faction reps on the RA but the two DPU reps who were present, who voted to repeal much of the Judiciary Act they had previously passed. Clearly they thought it was important enough to risk their seats in the RA by taking this step.[/quote:oarthe6s]

The seats are not "theirs". They belong to the CDS citizens as a whole. The representatives are entrusted with these positions ofr 6 months only, then lay down their functions and, if they so wish, ask the citizens to entrust them with a renewed mandate to represent them. It is exactly such an oligarchic sense of importance and entitlement to wyield power on the part of a small group of vocal citizens that has brought us where we are today.

[quote:oarthe6s]So the plan was to make the judiciary the final arbiter of these questions? That was the accusation made against the Judiciary by some of its opponents, I can't say that I wholely believed it. You appear to have confirmed their suspicions though. We have been saved in the nick of time then from a 'judicial coup'. Phew![/quote:oarthe6s]

I wrote:

[quote:oarthe6s]No other appeal possibility exsists because the bill in question has destroyed the only independent institution capable of fairly and firmly weighing issues of democracy, constitutionality and the rule of law in our community [b:oarthe6s]besides the RA and SC[/b:oarthe6s], [u:oarthe6s]some of whose mebmers have worked together to achieve the very destruction of our judicial system[/u:oarthe6s].[/quote:oarthe6s]

If we should talk about a "coup", it is rather a coup of the small power-wyelding oligarchy unwilling to abandon their feudal privileges and accept impartial principles of fairness and the rule of law against the legitimate judiciary system of the CDS that shoud be discussed.

[quote:oarthe6s]
This is Aliasi's comment about Goreans? What was insensitive about her statement? Why shouldn't I (or anyone else) push back against attempts to censor people's views?[/quote:oarthe6s]

Public officials in public fora have higher standards and higher duties to uphold that a private citizen in non-public media.

[quote:oarthe6s]The only party? That's a rather big claim. On the issue of CARE's constitutionality, I will be arguing that you are within your rights to have members who are not CDS citizens provided they do not take decisions on the party platform for elections or select candidates for the RA. We have a similar situation in the CSDF. We have open enrollment and so some avatars from outside the CDS have joined because they broadly share our political philosophy, we hope they will become members of the CDS. But they can only be 'supporters' according to our Charter. I see no conflict between this situation and the Constitution.[/quote:oarthe6s]

Indeed? How very interesting! I wonder then why the Irked Simplicity Party Member put so much verve and effort into dragging us in front of the SC, and why the CDS Chancellor decided to bring this matter to the SC now, when CARE threatens the established oligarchs' continued ability to rule, rather than long ago when CSDF adopted a virtually similar approach? As for our Party Charter, it reads as follows:

[quote:oarthe6s] Membership: Participation in CARE is open to all CDS citizens (CARE Activists) and non-citizens (CARE Observers). All CARE members are entitled to take part in all CARE debates and activities. Partcipatinon in decision-making procedures (such as voting) pertaining specifically to CDS-related policies is open only to CARE Activists.

Officers: CARE shall be led by three Co-Chairs (Consuls).

Selection: consuls running for specific consular positions shall be selected by a majority of CARE members at its yearly Convention (Senate) Meeting. All consuls must be CARE Activists (CDS Citizens). Consuls cannot hold more than two consecutive one-year mandates.

Elections: CARE shall field candidates for the positions of Chancellor of the CDS and Representative Assembly Members. Such candidates shall be selected by majority vote of all CDS Activists (CDS Citizens) at their yearly Senate Meetings and commit to run in two consecutive elections. Elected candidates cannot hold their CDS positions for longer than two consecutive terms of office. [/quote:oarthe6s]

CARE sees no coflict between its Charter and the Constitution either, and shall make representations to this effect in front of the SC.

[quote:oarthe6s]Quote:
9. And so, the circle closes. The very few individuals who today wield power in the RA and SC have worked together to...
No, the RA has taken a decision it is perfectly entitled to do. The SC has yet to consider the Constitutional Amendment and Bill.[/quote:oarthe6s]

The RA has willfully violated long-standing and well-established CDS customs (confirmed as such by the Dean of the SC) that the RA will not hold meetings during the last two weeks before an election to the RA, let alone pass such momentuous bills - especially one which was introduced less than 4 days before the vote.

This is indeed a coup masquerading as democracy, if ever there was one. CARE fully expects that the SC will declare this move unconstitutional and bar the RA from holding another meeting and vote on this Bill before the outcome of the electi0ns is known and new Reprsentatives take their seats, legitimated by a new mandate from all CDS citizens.

[quote:oarthe6s]
Quote:
I call this a Kafkaesque story of Orwellian proportions where Big Brother is watching us all and some citizens are clearly more equal than others.
I call this a one-sided distortion of the facts intended to shore up CARE's vote in the elections.[/quote:oarthe6s]

Call it what you please. The facts are clear and obvious for all to see. All CDS citizens, in their wisdom, will decide on this matter.

MM

[Carolyn Saarinen]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":qczkq60j][quote="Carolyn Saarinen":qczkq60j]I am not stressed, but I am concerned. What I [i:qczkq60j]said[/i:qczkq60j] was:
"Oh, and a hint to faction leaders: Public expressions of your disgust for my sexual orientation will not win you my vote, and I [i:qczkq60j]do[/i:qczkq60j] vote."

That seems to me to be a perfectly justified position for a citizen of a democracy to take. One might almost be surprised that it excited comment at all. Instead, I find myself obliged to make ever longer and more detailed defences of my position against a series of antagonists, apparently determined to browbeat me. Whatever anyone's intention, the message this sends to me, and probably other newcomers is: "Mind your place and shut your mouth or prepare to be ganged-up on."[/quote:qczkq60j]Of course you're entitled to take that position. But did you really think that it would not provoke a comment, at least from the person whose position you misrepresented?[/quote:qczkq60j]

I did not specify Aliasi, or her remark, until she did so herself. I do not see that I have misrepresented her. Indeed, I have been scrupulous in providing references to her actual posts, and quoting her verbatim.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":qczkq60j]The reason why I responded was that you went on to make a number of questionable assertions:
*that d/s is a sexual orientation like homosexuality[/quote:qczkq60j]

And you have yet to explain why you are so certain it isn't.

[quote:qczkq60j]*that some people were saying that d/s lifestylers should be excluded from CDS citizenship. (Actually the quote was "should we now welcome all Goreans and hardcore D/s lifestylers?" which is a question not a statement and Aliasi has clarified what she meant)[/quote:qczkq60j]

[i:qczkq60j]No[/i:qczkq60j], the quote was: "There were slaves in ancient Rome; should we now welcome all Goreans and hardcore D/s lifestylers?" Aliasi was equating D/s to real slavery in the context of her belief that slavery is wrong. [i:qczkq60j]You[/i:qczkq60j] are misrepresenting her position.

[quote:qczkq60j]*that the expression of such opinions amounts to a contravention of the LL Terms of Service. (Since d/s is not a sexual orientation I disagree with your analysis, that's why I said you misquoted it. And a contravention of the ToS does carry potential sanctions. Misquoting it in this fashion is, in my opinion, an attempt to muzzle people who are critical of d/s lifestyles.)[/quote:qczkq60j]

The notion that D/s is not a sexual orientation is merely your opinion, and even if it were correct it would not make a verbatim copy of part of the CS a 'misquote'. Nor do I see how such a quotation can be interpreted as an attempt to 'muzzle' anyone - unless that person was aware that their actions [i:qczkq60j]were[/i:qczkq60j] a breach of the CS, in which case they would fear muzzling by LL not me.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":qczkq60j]You now go on to claim:
*that a refusal to equate d/s with homosexuality is the kind of hair-splitting engaged in by homophobes.[/quote:qczkq60j]

I do indeed.

[quote:qczkq60j]*that people not involved in d/s relationships can't possibly understand them[/quote:qczkq60j]

My point was that your assertion that D/s relationships are in some way inferior to others is something that requires proof, and I do not believe you are in a position to provide such proof, because it does not exist. It is impossible to judge the real nature of a relationship of which you are not a part.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":qczkq60j]Since I disagree strongly with all of these opinions why should I not be allowed to say so? What you are saying to me is "Even if you disagree with what I say, shut up and don't question me. You have no right to question my lifestyle." Sorry to disappoint but that isn't going to work with me.[/quote:qczkq60j]

I have said no such thing, nor implied it. What I said was:
"Oh, and a hint to faction leaders: Public expressions of your disgust for my sexual orientation will not win you my vote, and I [i:qczkq60j]do[/i:qczkq60j] vote." You have been trying to bully me ever since. "Sorry to disappoint but that isn't going to work with me."

[michelmanen]

Is is extraordinary to me that a leading public member of our community, the Chairman of no less than the Democratic Socialists, continues to bully and harass one of our citizens in this manner, in a public forum...

Then again, he also initiated the destruction of the rule of law and of principles of fairness, equality and democracy in our community...

I stand corrected. No surprise here. Stalin, Mao, Honecker and Ceausescu would have acted no differently - since after all, they were also leaders of their countries' Socialist Parties -and they were also democratically elected - with 99.5 % of their popular vote...

[Sleazy_Writer]

[quote:2zb8xrgf]Kindly refrain from cheap rhetorical tricks.[/quote:2zb8xrgf]

That happens quite a lot here lately

Isn't it sad considering the the amount of Ph.D.'s and such that are present in the CDS?

Hm, aren't tricks used in manipulation?

(Or should I lighten up and join in having rhetorical fun?)

[Patroklus Murakami]

Carolyn-

I want to draw this discussion to a close. I'm not interested in debating this any further with you. As I've said before, do what you want. I'm not interested in what goes on in your bedroom, it's a matter of personal choice. Get on with it and leave me out of it. It is not of interest to me.

But you have misrepresented my position and I feel I have to make clear what I actually have said and believe.[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":3mqq55oy]My point was that your assertion that D/s relationships are in some way inferior to others is something that requires proof, and I do not believe you are in a position to provide such proof, because it does not exist. It is impossible to judge the real nature of a relationship of which you are not a part.[/quote:3mqq55oy]I did not say that d/s relationships are inferior to others. You were trying to make out that "any relationship is, to some degree, a dominance/submission relationship" and I said "There's a world of difference between the negotiation, compromise and interplay between two adults in a loving partnership of equals and the acting out of d/s roles. Please don't try to characterise all of us as part of that world, we're not." You don't get to define my relationship as being 'in some degree, a dominance/submission relationship'. I refuse to allow you to define what my relationship is about.

Finally, in connection with your annoyance at my posts in response to you, you said:[quote:3mqq55oy]You have been trying to bully me ever since.[/quote:3mqq55oy]I take that charge quite seriously. I don't see how you could define any of my posts as 'bullying' unless you consider taking issue with someone's argument as 'bullying' in which case you have been as guilty of it as I. I disagree with you, am I not allowed to say so? Don't play the victim, you've demonstrated that you're clearly perfectly capable of defending yourself with your words in this thread. You don't need to resort to cheap tricks, like a spurious claim of 'bullying', to defend your position.

I don't really want to continue this discussion. Can we agree to disagree?

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="michelmanen":15fjq7tf]Is is extraordinary to me that a leading public member of our community, the Chairman of no less than the Democratic Socialists, continues to bully and harass one of our citizens in this manner, in a public forum...

Then again, he also initiated the destruction of the rule of law and of principles of fairness, equality and democracy in our community...

I stand corrected. No surprise here. Stalin, Mao, Honecker and Ceausescu would have acted no differently - since after all, they were also leaders of their countries' Socialist Parties -and they were also democratically elected - with 99.5 % of their popular vote...[/quote:15fjq7tf]It's a shame that you've decided to get the election campaign off to such an unpleasant start. I don't think anyone could reasonably accuse me of bullying and harrassment by responding to someone's posts with a different point of view.

As for 'the destruction of democracy, the rule of law and the slaughtering of newborn babies', hyperbole much?

The comparison to Stalin et al is an offensive personal attack. If you have any moral scruples you will withdraw it.

[Beathan]

Carolyn wrote, in reponse to me [quote:qlyjb6gk]Two swift responses in fact. I have a distinct sense of being double-teamed.[/quote:qlyjb6gk]

I meant my response to be substantive and respectful -- not at all part of a double team. My psychological work has led me to believe that D/s may well be a sexual orientation or cluster of sexual orientations, as Carolyn suggests. I have found that the emotional and physical intimacy involved in such relationship are different in kind from such intimacy in relationships set up along different lines. I have also found that this difference matters greatly to many people, so much so that some people cannot have a complete sexual experience ouside of a D/s relationship.

To me, the main difference between an acceptable sexual orientation and a pathological paraphilia involves the effect of the relationship on the psychological and physical health of the participants. Homosexuality, as such, can be a form or method of love and human bonding -- and as such is properly accepted as sexual orientation. If practiced by good people and with self-control and a background of care, the D/s orientation can likewise avoid the pitfalls that make me think a form of sexuality is pathological paraphilia.

However, the mere fact of an orientation is not sufficient. Pedophilia is clearly an orientation. So is biastophilia (rape orientation). So is frotteurism (non-consentual, non-penetrating public sexual contact). However, all these forms of sexuality damage one or (more accurately) all of the participants.

However, I agree with Pat -- what happens among consenting adults in private is no one's concern but them. Further, provided there is a background of voluntariness, I don't even think we need to have actual demonstrated consent in fact. However, this discussion tells us very little about how politics in the CDS should be done -- and how our community should be integrated and bound together -- which is the point I was trying to get at.

I am sure that I would know that Carolyn is a domme if I had ever met her inworld. I regret never having done so, but I also feel secure in the fact that I have gone out of my way to try to meet new people inworld in CN and NF -- so my failure to meet Carolyn thus far, while regrettable, is not a culpable omission.

Carolyn, I do wish to meet you -- and every other CDS citizen - and get to know you inworld. If you care to, please drop me an IM and we can meet up and discuss sexuality, politics, Michel's hair, or any other topic that catches your fancy.

Beathan

[michelmanen]

Patroklus,

When our members are bullied and harassed in a public forum by public officials we will not just stand back and watch in silent contempation.

I did not compare you personally with the Communist Dictators. I said they have used in the past the same institutional and public methods of bullying, silencing and destruction of the rule of law, openness, freedom and democracy as you have over the last few days, in the middle of an election campaign. Can you see the difference or do you need it spelled out in more detail?

The unpleasant start of this campaign was not initiated by us, who have brought new standards of openness, inclusion, diversity, participation and professionalism to this community (which other factions are now scambling to imitate, after attending our inaugural meetings and seeing for themselves the success we have achieved in barely one week among the citizens whose voice is usually not represented in our media and institutions), but rather by you and others in opposite factions who used their official and public powers in an undemocratic and illegitimate manner to repeal our Judiciary system in the middle of an election campaign, who wish to bar CARE from taking part in these elections by any means whatsover, including legal harassment, threats and invective, and who want to maintain their oligarchic stranglehold over our democratic institutions and public sphere.

We don't expect an apology from any of you. We'll let the people decide. It is abundantly clear to all now what YOU really stand for!

MM

[Carolyn Saarinen]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":a882cotq]Carolyn-

I want to draw this discussion to a close. [/quote:a882cotq]

I'll [i:a882cotq]bet[/i:a882cotq] you do. You've shot yourself in the foot so many times here, you must be out of ammo! Alaisi had already forfeited any chance at my vote, you have done the same for your party. If there is any justice, you've lost more than just the chance at [i:a882cotq]my[/i:a882cotq] support.

[quote:a882cotq]But you have misrepresented my position and I feel I have to make clear what I actually have said and believe. I did not say that d/s relationships are inferior to others. You were trying to make out that "any relationship is, to some degree, a dominance/submission relationship" and I said "There's a world of difference between the negotiation, compromise and interplay between two adults in a loving partnership of equals and the acting out of d/s roles. Please don't try to characterise all of us as part of that world, we're not." You don't get to define my relationship as being 'in some degree, a dominance/submission relationship'. I refuse to allow you to define what my relationship is about.[/quote:a882cotq]

Precisely. Your statement makes it clear that you believe that a D/s relationship does not, indeed cannot consist of or contain "the negotiation, compromise and interplay between two adults in a loving partnership." That seems a clear indication that you believe that D/s relationships are inferior to non D/s ones. That opinion is both offensive and factually incorrect.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":a882cotq]Finally, in connection with your annoyance at my posts in response to you, you said:[quote:a882cotq]You have been trying to bully me ever since.[/quote:a882cotq]I take that charge quite seriously. I don't see how you could define any of my posts as 'bullying' unless you consider taking issue with someone's argument as 'bullying' in which case you have been as guilty of it as I. I disagree with you, am I not allowed to say so? Don't play the victim, you've demonstrated that you're clearly perfectly capable of defending yourself with your words in this thread. You don't need to resort to cheap tricks, like a spurious claim of 'bullying', to defend your position.[/quote:a882cotq]

For the [i:a882cotq]fourth[/i:a882cotq] time. What I said was: "Oh, and a hint to faction leaders: Public expressions of your disgust for my sexual orientation will not win you my vote, and I [i:a882cotq]do[/i:a882cotq] vote." A brief and reasonable statement. Since making it, I have had to read hundreds of words from you attacking both myself and my sexuality. That certainly seems like bullying to me. My ability to defend myself may have come as an unpleasant surprise to you, that doesn't alter the intention behind your posts.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":a882cotq]I don't really want to continue this discussion. Can we agree to disagree?[/quote:a882cotq]

Your surrender is accepted.

[Sleazy_Writer]

[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":ov1i3xm0]
[quote="Patroklus Murakami":ov1i3xm0]Carolyn- I want to draw this discussion to a close.[/quote:ov1i3xm0]
I'll bet you do. You've shot yourself in the foot so many times here, you must be out of ammo! Alaisi had already forfeited any chance at my vote, you have done the same for your party. If there is any justice, you've lost more than just the chance at my support.[/quote:ov1i3xm0]

Ladies and gentlement, I think we have a new power-debater.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":2a4jewgz][
If you meant your remark to apply only to Goreans, why not phrase it as such? Why mention D/s in general with or without the meaningless qualifier 'hardcore'. Next time I'm at the BDSM Forum, I'll see if anyone knows what that means.
[/quote:2a4jewgz]

Considering I have [i:2a4jewgz]met[/i:2a4jewgz] non-Gorean D/s lifestylers with a similar "if you don't live this way, you aren't really living" attitude, I really don't know what to say. I certainly don't believe them to be in the majority by any means.

[quote:2a4jewgz]
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":2a4jewgz] I'm not telling you how to live your life[/quote:2a4jewgz]

Merely proposing that I be sanctioned for doing so in certain ways.

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":2a4jewgz]As for my feelings on homosexuals... well, that's one of the stranger accusations to throw my direction. I've never been one for self-hatred.[/quote:2a4jewgz]

It was not an accusation as you know, but a question. Kindly refrain from cheap rhetorical tricks.[/quote:2a4jewgz]

I'm afraid you got there before I did, Carolyn.

I find it difficult to believe anyone who has read even a fair sampling of my 300 posts on this forum, or the 1,856 on the official LL forum, or even just me blathering on at length in a transcript, would come to this kind of conclusion. I don't normally expect people to do this, but since you went to the trouble to dig that up, clearly you've done some reading. I certainly find it difficult that someone would believe I would indulge any personal bias of mine in such a way. There is a significant difference between "I, personally, do not like this" and "This is an abomination that cannot be withstood". There's damn few things that qualify for the second, and I don't care about the first if you aren't involving me.

For the benefit of all concerned, Aliasi's Ethics and View On The World In General can probably be best summarized by the "TANSTAAFL" and "The Sovereign Individual" here: http://www.ericsgrumbles.net. Not perfectly, but it saves me typing.

[Carolyn Saarinen]

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":390rtoew]

[quote:390rtoew]
It was not an accusation as you know, but a question. Kindly refrain from cheap rhetorical tricks.[/quote:390rtoew]

I'm afraid you got there before I did, Carolyn.

I find it difficult to believe anyone who has read even a fair sampling of my 300 posts on this forum, or the 1,856 on the official LL forum, or even just me blathering on at length in a transcript, would come to this kind of conclusion. I don't normally expect people to do this, but since you went to the trouble to dig that up, clearly you've done some reading. I certainly find it difficult that someone would believe I would indulge any personal bias of mine in such a way. There is a significant difference between "I, personally, do not like this" and "This is an abomination that cannot be withstood". There's damn few things that qualify for the second, and I don't care about the first if you aren't involving me.

For the benefit of all concerned, Aliasi's Ethics and View On The World In General can probably be best summarized by the "TANSTAAFL" and "The Sovereign Individual" here: http://www.ericsgrumbles.net. Not perfectly, but it saves me typing.[/quote:390rtoew]

I've got a better idea: Follow your fellow-bigot's example and quit while you're behind.