Has Number_6 abandoned us?
- Thread starter Morrhigan
- Start date
Starship Coyote
Original Gangster!
Considering that he hasn't posted since the 16th, that's a safe assumption.
Other possibilities are:
- His wife cut his online time
- He's dead in a morgue somewhere
- He's dead somewhere besides a morgue
- The aliens finally took him
- One of his students shot him
- One of his collegues shot him
-He didn't get tenure and is now asking his former students if they want to supersize that
I can think of others.
Other possibilities are:
- His wife cut his online time
- He's dead in a morgue somewhere
- He's dead somewhere besides a morgue
- The aliens finally took him
- One of his students shot him
- One of his collegues shot him
-He didn't get tenure and is now asking his former students if they want to supersize that
I can think of others.
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
He basically has, at least for the time being. I even saw him post at Trek a week or two ago...yikes.My theory has been proven right again...if you want someone to disappear at TK, just give them their own forum. Works every time.
Red Whacker
New Member
meh
Number_6
beer, I want beer
I'm here. I'm just incredibly bored by all of the DLA, ADLA, AFPCA, NAACP, etc. bullshit.
I'm not sure which of the longtimers were involved in this, and I don't really care. I just think it was incredibly lame, and I'm waiting for the place to return to normal before I devote any time to the board.
I am sad that the Heinlein discussion, which both Mike and I were interested in undertaking, was completely ignored in the rush to play idiotic karma games. I wanted to come through for Mike this time, having been too busy to finish reading Dune.
I know that idiotic games are all part and parcel of TK, but I thought we were moving towards being able to wear more than one identity at a time. Apparently not.
As for "my" forum, this isn't WF, and I'm not Cass, so I'm not going to begin my day by posting a dozen wacko threads. You want to talk politics and you think that the left has its head up its ass? Post something worth responding to, and I'll respond. You want to post lameass shit, go ahead. I'll ignore it.
I'm not sure which of the longtimers were involved in this, and I don't really care. I just think it was incredibly lame, and I'm waiting for the place to return to normal before I devote any time to the board.
I am sad that the Heinlein discussion, which both Mike and I were interested in undertaking, was completely ignored in the rush to play idiotic karma games. I wanted to come through for Mike this time, having been too busy to finish reading Dune.
I know that idiotic games are all part and parcel of TK, but I thought we were moving towards being able to wear more than one identity at a time. Apparently not.
As for "my" forum, this isn't WF, and I'm not Cass, so I'm not going to begin my day by posting a dozen wacko threads. You want to talk politics and you think that the left has its head up its ass? Post something worth responding to, and I'll respond. You want to post lameass shit, go ahead. I'll ignore it.
Number_6
beer, I want beer
Tom Sawyer said:
The answer would be "none of the above." The recent antics on this board have bored me out of my skull, and I've come to lurk only to see whether or not they had ended.
On a completely different tangent, why "Tom Sawyer"? A tribute to Mark Twain, or to Rush? Are you trying to tell us that your mind is not for rent? If so, cheers.
Pthalo BlueMoon
missmanners' favorite toy
He's back! WooHoo! And he's in rare form.
I even played the Zinn card, hoping you'd come out of retirement (tho what I posted was true, I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise).
The Heinlein thing, for me personally, was mistimed. However, being the Heinlein-phile that I am, I do have some general thoughts that I will share.
Glad to see you...and your "old av"....back.
I even played the Zinn card, hoping you'd come out of retirement (tho what I posted was true, I wouldn't have mentioned it otherwise).
The Heinlein thing, for me personally, was mistimed. However, being the Heinlein-phile that I am, I do have some general thoughts that I will share.
Glad to see you...and your "old av"....back.
WordInterrupted
Troll Kingdom Ambassador
Hehehehehe... here I was, hoping the aliens had whisked him to Pluto and implanted a sense of humor in his brain, but no such luck! He's the same persnickety sourpuss he's always been!
Number_6
beer, I want beer
WordInterrupted said:
Something funny would have had to have happened for my sense of humor to have been engaged.
What's happened here in the last month has been one of the stupidest "trolls" I have ever witnessed. The stupidity displayed here has been physically painful.
I would welcome something to laugh at. Like you or PBM, for example. I've had a number of laughs at the idiocy you've both spewed regarding Howard Zinn, for example.
Eggs Mayonnaise
All In With The Nuts
Still no more true than that was a week ago, or two weeks, or three...
Keep looking in the mirror and telling yourself what you see, we'll be over here on Planet Earth.
Dipwad(s).
Keep looking in the mirror and telling yourself what you see, we'll be over here on Planet Earth.
Dipwad(s).
Number_6
beer, I want beer
VKD said:then you'll be waiting a long time. The place will never return to 'normal' - whatever that means.
if you leave permanently, then you join the ranks of gagh, henoch etc.. that the DLA have successfully trolled into submission...
Here I am. You lose. Thanks for playing.
WordInterrupted
Troll Kingdom Ambassador
Oh goodness, aren't you a barrel o' fun!
But seriously, I was ripping on liberals in that Howard Zinn thread. You think I'm an idiot for calling liberals anti-democratic? Are you a liberal-lover now?
Number_6
beer, I want beer
WordInterrupted said:
Ripping on them? Or trying to devise a better game plan for a bunch of elitist shitbags trying to pretend they're in touch with the common citizen?
You are correct in your assessment of the left. They are, indeed, anti-democratic, and resort to anti-democratic tactics to push their agenda through, despite the resistance of those whom they force to live under their agenda.
If you had the intelligence you claim, you'd start to ask questions about the left because of their anti-democratic tendencies. And I don't just mean suggesting new strategies, but questioning their entire agenda, wondering whether or not it is what it purports to be.
But then you're a bit of an elitist yourself, aren't you? Perhaps you think that the average citizen is too stupid to make his or her own decisions?
WordInterrupted
Troll Kingdom Ambassador
In this case, a change in strategy is a change in agenda. Liberal legal activists have used the courts to defend and expand civil liberties. Defedning free speech and protecting the rights of the accused are worthy goals, to be sure, but they are not the stuff of broad-based popular movements. Even when popular movements do grow up on the left, such as the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's or the pro-choice movement in the 70's, supreme court cases like Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade make them unecessary. If liberals pursue a strategy based in popular democracy, they'll have to turn to issues that are not within the purview of the court, such as economic fairness and equality of oppotunity. That would mean a huge change in the political agenda, because those subjects are barely even discussed at present.
What exactly do you mean when you claim the Supreme Court has "forced" its agenda on people? It has forced majorities to respect civil liberties by preventing them from passing laws that, for example, segregate public schools or deny voting rights. However, even if the court diminishes the democratic perogative of the majority by protecting civil liberties, it is at the same time freeing people from government coersion, allowing them to live as they choose and participate more freely in the democratic process. The court is a paradoxical institution: it's anti-democratic in that it forces majorities to accede to its will, but it's democratic in the sense that it protects the right of the individual to vote and participate in politics. This paradox makes it difficult to dismiss liberal politics as mere totalitarianism. Defending the rights of the individual against the encroachment of government is not a totalitarian project.
This whole argument is kind of strange because the era of liberal activism on the supreme court has been over for a very long time. Both Clinton appointees are moderate justices who think the court should defer to the legislature as much as possible: Ginsburg was actually opposed to Roe when it was decided (she only supports it now because of starre decisis) and Breyer has just written a book arguing for judicial moderation. If you look at their records, both are much less willing to overturn the will of Congress than arch-conservatives like Scalia and Thomas, who would strip congress of most of it's power to make laws democratically if they had the chance. The activist judges on the court today are conservatives.
What exactly do you mean when you claim the Supreme Court has "forced" its agenda on people? It has forced majorities to respect civil liberties by preventing them from passing laws that, for example, segregate public schools or deny voting rights. However, even if the court diminishes the democratic perogative of the majority by protecting civil liberties, it is at the same time freeing people from government coersion, allowing them to live as they choose and participate more freely in the democratic process. The court is a paradoxical institution: it's anti-democratic in that it forces majorities to accede to its will, but it's democratic in the sense that it protects the right of the individual to vote and participate in politics. This paradox makes it difficult to dismiss liberal politics as mere totalitarianism. Defending the rights of the individual against the encroachment of government is not a totalitarian project.
This whole argument is kind of strange because the era of liberal activism on the supreme court has been over for a very long time. Both Clinton appointees are moderate justices who think the court should defer to the legislature as much as possible: Ginsburg was actually opposed to Roe when it was decided (she only supports it now because of starre decisis) and Breyer has just written a book arguing for judicial moderation. If you look at their records, both are much less willing to overturn the will of Congress than arch-conservatives like Scalia and Thomas, who would strip congress of most of it's power to make laws democratically if they had the chance. The activist judges on the court today are conservatives.