From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
   >>J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >>>Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
      
   I restored the bottom two attribution lines.   
      
   Once again, I am asking you to stop deliberately cutting out   
   attribution lines while retaining quotes. It is critical to provide   
   attributions so that the reader knows who said what.   
      
   If the quote is retained, retain its attribution line. If the quote is cut,   
   don't retain the attribution line.   
      
   My comment that follows immediately was about your quoute of Mike Solana   
   at Pirate Wires, whose attribution yuo also removed, despite retaining   
   another quote of what he had written below. Have consideration for the   
   reader.   
      
   >>>>I wonder why he's unconcerned about the two political assasinations   
   >>>>and two attempted murders in Minnesota, within the last three   
   >>>>months.   
      
   >>>They weren't political assassinations, is probably why. The shooter   
   >>>of the two legislators was pretty obviously a lunatic. Also note   
   >>>that no one cheered him on.   
      
   >>He had a lengthy list of politicians on his kill list, and there were   
   >>plenty of suggestions that it was in reaction to recent votes.   
      
   >He also said Tim Walz was beaming coded messages to him or something.   
      
   That delusion appears to be a schizophrenic hallucination, yes.   
   Nevertheless, everyone on his list of identified targets was an elected   
   official (plus high-ranking appointed officials, if I recall correctly),   
   trrgetted for being politicians.   
      
   Do we know that the first several he targetted wasn't about recent   
   controversial votes they had taken in the legislature? I haven't read   
   that it was ruled out.   
      
   >>I don't know what your point is.   
      
   >My point is that there is a fundamental difference between a lunatic   
   >murdering someone out of delusion and someone murdering someone to   
   >silence his political speech. Both are bad. One is worse.   
      
   Murder is murder. Full stop. The motives were different. I sure as hell   
   don't agree with the need to rank the severity of motive with similar   
   severity of crime and similar consequence of crime.   
      
   If you insist that an attempt to censor is a prerequisite for making   
   the crime political, you might then insist that Thomas Crooks wasn't a   
   POLITICAL assasin because he had already made the decision to commit a   
   notorious murder and then chose to make Trump his victim because the   
   rally was close by. Trump was targetted for being a politician, not   
   specific to what he'd said.   
      
   I don't agree with your amateur psychological diagnoses. A criminal   
   intending to commit a notorious crime need not be in the grip of a   
   schizophrenic hallucination to be deluded. Someone wants notoriety? That's   
   literally a delusion of grandeur, although that's not an actual   
   psychological diagnosis.   
      
   The murders and attempted murders at the Congressional baseball game a   
   number of years ago weren't political assasinations. The criminal had   
   decided to commit a mass murder of complete strangers and happened upon   
   the opportunity here. That was neither political nor censorious, but I   
   can't just handwaive away the possibility of delusion in the desire for   
   notoriety,   
      
   The following quote is of Mike Solana at Pirate Wires, the attribution   
   of which you failed to retain (and I should have restored in a precursor   
   followup).   
      
   >>>>>    In the case of Thompson, we were made to endure weeks of   
   >>>>>    healthcare discourse, not only by otherwise "reasonable"   
   >>>>>    left-wing talking heads, but sitting politicians like AOC and   
   >>>>>    Warren. Hasan Piker, who called Luigi "based," has been   
   >>>>>    characterized by the press, with glowing editorials, as the   
   >>>>>    future of the left for months.   
      
   >>>>I don't know what "based" means, and there were no "glowing   
   >>>>editorials" in favor of murder.   
      
   >>>The "glowing editorials" referred to the press's treatment of a man   
   >>>(Piker) who had praised murder.   
      
   >>Lacking a citation, it's still bullshit. It's a straw man to rail   
   >>against unnamed enemies, not a point of debate.   
      
   >Why do you need "a citation" when the quote is right there in front of   
   >you?   
      
   You cannot see for yourself that the writer failed to cite and quote   
   representative examples of "glowing editorials" to support his point of   
   outrageous behavior by mainstream newspapers? If such an editorial had   
   been written, he'd have quoted it. That's libel.   
      
   The writer set up a straw man. You gaslighted this, Straw man arguments   
   are always a loss of points in a competitve debate. An argument made in   
   debate without support isn't an argument at all.   
      
   What objection do you lawyers make routinely? "Assumes facts not in evidence."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)