baltimore

[henry quirk]

Dana,

“presuppose a sense of community which includes shops and businesses”

Doesn’t take a sense of community to understand (before you set the fire) that burning out a business you rely on is not in your best interest…what it takes is a little ‘thinking’ and a lot less ‘feeling’.


“collective response”

I see this any time a gaggle of kids get together…the high spirits of one infect the others and before long you got a ‘pack’.

I expect adults (young and old) to resist such impulses…my expectations are, I suppose, unrealistic.

#

Happy Monkey,

“Essentially, you lied to your nephew.”

I answered his question honestly, in a way he can understand, using the information available at the time.

I may be mistaken in my assessments but I didn’t lie.

#

Lamp,

“Should that be interpreted that it is OK to settle grievances against law enforcement, so long as only the jails, the police stations, cop cars, or local cop's personal houses... are torched ?”

You can interpret as you like…what I say is: if you have a beef, take it up with the one who has insulted or damaged you, not with innocent folks and certainly not by doing self-injury (and, mebbe, if you aren't party to the insult or injury you ought to just butt the fuck out).


“This guy just doesn't get it... it's not about the $”

I disagree…but: even if you’re right ‘today’ he will most certainly be right ‘tomorrow’.

#

Toad,

“your basic philosophy”

What is my ‘basic philosophy’?


“I assure you it doesn't.”

I disagree, but: as you like.

[tw]

Nobody can honestly say we did not see this coming. A Cambridge professor is harassed by a cop because the professor was trying to get into his house. We have seen this both nationally and I have watched local municipal meetings where residents were complaining about same - in an upscale residential community for one.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Toad,

“your basic philosophy”

What is my ‘basic philosophy’?

It was clear in context, which remains available for you to read harder.

“I assure you it doesn't.”

I disagree, but: as you like.

Stated feelings are not really up for disagreement. "I'm not angry with you." "Yes you are." Well, fuck, where do we go from there? "No I'm not." "Augh, you've got me there." Nice thread we're having?

[Lamplighter]

“I think I am presenting your own arguments to say the isolated individual
is impotent against the misdeeds of law enforcement.”

I’m sorry you feel impotent (as an individual), Lamp. Explains a lot, though.

When your arguments fail, divert to non-sequiturs and ad hominems.

[henry quirk]

Toad,

"It was clear in context"

What is clear 'in context': you have no clue what I believe (you think you do, but you don't). So: be clear, state what you think my philosophy is.

And: no, I won't be stating it for you. You accuse me of incoherence based on 'my philosophy'. The burden is on you to back it up by stating what you think 'is' my philosophy.

If you can't or won't: your claim of my incoherence is null and void.


"Stated feelings are not really up for disagreement."

Of course they are. I believe you find me distasteful. You claim otherwise. I don't believe you.

We disagree.

However, there's no profit for me or you in dickin' around with it so -- as I say up thread -- 'as you like.'

[henry quirk]

Lamp,

My point: I, as individual, don't feel impotent.

You, perhaps, do.

Now, beat that drum some more.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

Lamp,
My point: I, as individual, don't feel impotent....

I feel you are, but won't realize (or admit to) it.
We disagree.

Stated feelings are not really up for disagreement.
"I'm not angry with you." "Yes you are." Well, fuck, where do we go from there?
"No I'm not." "Augh, you've got me there." Nice thread we're having?

'nouf said