[Vision2020] Pollyanna Wants to Know: Who's the Lying Sack ofSh*t?

[lfalen]

Wayne
I think your last sentence is a low blow. Paul takes a principled stand on issues and takes a lot of flack for it. I do not agee with him on all issues but I would be more than happy to have him in my corner when ever possible.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:47:58 -0700
To: Vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Pollyanna Wants to Know: Who's the Lying Sack ofSh*t?

> 
> You keep making this stale, irrational statement disguised as an argument.  Maybe if the megaloads were atomic waste, you see things differently.
> 
> You must have loved Kant or Saint Augustine at one time in your life.
> 
> People can always think of reasons not to look too closely at their personal principles to avoid action to help others.  So-called principles are self-defeating if they prevent one from acting to prevent horrific consequences.  All principles have limits.  
> 
> I am personally glad that I will never have to rely upon you when the chips are down.
> 
> w.
> 
> 
> From: Paul Rumelhart 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:38 AM
> To: Art Deco 
> Cc: Vision2020 at moscow.com 
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Pollyanna Wants to Know: Who's the Lying Sack of Sh*t?
> 
> 
> On 07/19/2011 09:48 AM, Art Deco wrote: 
>   Saundra,
> 
>   Thank you again for pointing out that the consequences of the megaloads far transcend local considerations -- a point that proponents either refuse to recognize or have not the guts to deal in an honest manner with.
> 
>   Several of us have commented at length on these issues, but basically proponents act like no one has brought them up, that they are unimportant, and/or irrelevant.  Obviously the proponents are not the "my brother's keeper type" and are among those that are generally parts of problems but not parts of solutions.  Part of the tough problems that our country and the world now face are caused by similar individuals though capable are unwilling to do or to pay their share.
> 
> The evils of the tar sands project *is* irrelevant to whether or not we should allow them to move through town on public roads.  That's the downside to public roads.  You can't control what people do on them, apart from making sure they obey the law.  The upside is that no one can control what *you* do on them.  They can't, for example, decide that you can't use the road because you are against the tar sands project.  That egalitarian freedom is something I think is important, though you seem willing to throw it under the bus as soon as it stops being convenient for you.
> 
> Now, I don't know why you (and others) feel the need to conflate my support for that one simple idea into some kind of tacit approval of the tar sands project itself.  Certainly claiming that you know that I am somehow "part of the problem" is simply asinine.
> 
> So, when are you going to don your armor and your lance and march on the tar sands project?  Or are *you* part of the problem?
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
>