Subject:
|
Re: The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 26 Jan 2002 15:34:22 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1870 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > There are 'rich guys' out there teaching the sheep how we can start to • exploit
> > > these same loopholes.
> >
> > Can we please include "sheep" accusations in Godwin's law, too? I mean,
> > I'm not in the habit of calling conspiracy-theorists "paranoid, raving,
> > credulous buffoons," so I find it petty and annoying that non-believers of
> > conspiracy theory are called sheep.
>
> I'm not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but just in case...
>
> In this segment of my note, the sheep were not the conspiracy nuts, they were
> the masses of people who, not knowing how to take advantage of the system (and
> probably not having the funds to do so effectively -- or at least believing
> that), do not exploit the loopholes that the rich use (e.g. land trusts,
> section C corporations, etc) I attempted to indicate a non-disparaging way by
> including myself in that group.
Yeah, it was intended as more tongue in cheek than it came across--I was in
part alluding to my recent calls for other additions to the Godwin list.
"Petty and annoying" was a poor word choice...
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?))
|
| (...) exploit (...) I'm not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but just in case... In this segment of my note, the sheep were not the conspiracy nuts, they were the masses of people who, not knowing how to take advantage of the system (and (...) (23 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
