Sunday, December 09, 2012
Coward? Liar? A Challenge to Post-Libertarian
"In the course of seven email responses PL managed to use at least 12 different insults to describe the people at FEE [...],"
I used about 600 to describe Szasz and Richman. Where was your righteous indignation then? But more of that anon.
"[...] called me lazy, offered to make an entirely different bet, [...]"
You mean, about Borders? That was in addition, not in lieu, of the previous bet. My words, verbatim: "Want another bet? Within three months Borders writes a piece saying we need a 'rational' immigration system". It seems clear that it was not meant to replace our previous bet.
"[...]ranted several times against the paleo diet (?)[...]"
Context, please? My words, verbatim: "And isn't the man [Grimmett] a 'paleo-dieter'? That's a sister cult of the 'organic' food cult, only crazier. I submit that as Exhibit A that the man has no basic knowledge of science, or he wouldn't be chewing on broiled grasshoppers or whatever it is these people are eating and thinking it's good for them."
That statement was meant as evidence for Grimmett's ignorance of science, and is thus pertinent to the discussion. You may disagree as to whether this constitutes good evidence, but to omit the context altogether is just nefarious.
"[...] made reference to a Cato-FEE-FFF-Hillsdale cabal (??),[...]"
Is that what I said? My words, verbatim: "It's that Cato-FEE-FFF-GMU-HIllsdale web, where we're all buddies and we have to stick together." Web, not cabal. Now, either as a result of dishonesty or sloppiness, you are putting words in my mouth and changing what I said. A web is not a cabal, although it's along the same line of progression.
"[...] and finally said he was only willing to discuss snooker and Emerson(???)."
The snooker remark was humorous and you know it, for the simple reason that you know nothing about snooker and I know it, but Emerson? If you haven't noticed, Emerson plays an important role in PL 2.0. My words, verbatim: "I'm intentioanlly ignoring what you write becasue I am tired of discussing Grimmeetts and Borders and paleocreeps and other forms of trash. If you wish to discuss Emerson or snooker, let me know." [typos in the original].
Exactly. I am tired of discussing morons, and I'd much rather be discussing Emerson (or snooker, if you insist). Put all the questions marks you want, but it makes sense when you provide context.
"[…] He never responded to a single one of my refutations, carefully dodging them."
I have responded to your nonsense "evidence" repeatedly until I got tired of it. Your proposed research methods are almost too idiotic to merit consideration, and they are certainly not worth the dignified responses I gave them.
Considering the gross misrepresentation of our communication, I see no recourse but to insist that you publish these emails, verbatim, for otherwise there is no use continuing this discussion. The facts must be on the table or you'd continue this disinformation-based slanderous attack. Whether or not you agree to publish these communications is of no importance, as I will do so on my blog within a day or two, anyway. By misrepresenting my statements, you have left me no choice and so I see no reason to ask for your permission.
Let me sign off for today by noting your disingenuousness and hypocrisy. You've been reading my blog almost from the very start and you've seen me make far more brutal and personal attacks, starting with Walter Block and continuing with Richman, Szasz, and others. My style never seemed to bother you until now when your friend is being attacked. In fact, you use a quote from an email Walter Block sent me in your byline, knowing full well that I did not have Block's permission to publish that communication. But now, all of a sudden, my style of personal attacks bothers you. That's the web to which I was referring, and thank you for exposing it so well.
I will publish the full set of emails when I have a chance, if you wish.
Now to business. Pay up on the bet you lost.
This should expose your misrepresentations, lies, and hysteria without much effort on my part.
Further comments on your miserable attempt to shill for your buddy will be on my blog. By the exiguous number of hits my blog received as a result of that post, I can only assume that I have more readers than you do, anyway.