My Tactical Violation of Commandment 11

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/12/lnc-resolution-of-discipline-for-angela-keaton/

Susan, revealing that you radicals oppose part of the Bill of Rights is a fact-ful example of what you apparently consider "interfering" with your work, so I don't see how you're contradicting me there. (Thank you for stipulating to my good intentions.)

I can't agree that merely applying for PlatCom is prima facie evidence of wanting to drastically change it.  After all, I applied for PlatCom too.  I didn't say you "endorse" the platform.  I stand by my statement that there is nothing in your sample planks to suggest you want to restore the 2004 format or any of the crypto-anarchism (e.g. personal secession, immediate non-enforcement of all tax laws) of the 2004 platform.

Chris, I thank you for including me in your boorish attacks on the character of people who disagree with you.  Such attacks tend to help discredit the ideas of those who make them.  (Hi, Jim!)  I'd ask you for an example of me ridiculing something that isn't ridiculous, but I learned long ago that people like you never bother to back up their drive-by attempts at character assassination.

I do allow comments on my two main blogs, Libertarian Intelligence and Knowing Humans.  I turn off comments at http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/ simply because it's an archive of comments I post elsewhere.  I almost never forget to include a link to the forum where I posted the comment, and that is the obvious place to reply to me.  The one time someone has insisted that I allow a comment directly on a posting there, I agreed.  Just tell me which posting you want to try to rebut.

George, your attempt to paint me as suggesting that "inanimate objects think" is just too ham-handed to bother rebutting.  I'll gladly accept your stipulation that your Facebook group is not a petition against disciplining Angela, and that its members "may be pro, con or undecided/neutral and just want to learn more".  Thank you for completely undercutting the prima facie purpose of the group.

The LPradicals group is not organized around the narrow cause of asking a particular body to refrain from doing a specific thing to a specific person at a specific imminent meeting, so your analogy is flawed.  However, I absolutely agree that I'm a radical.  In fact, I claim that I'm more radical than the "LP Radicals" under the criteria I list at http://more.libertarianintelligence.com/2008/11/taxonomy-of-radicalness.html.  Sorry, Debra, you'll have to revoke from George the trophy you awarded him for the apparently momentous feat of using "Holtz logic" against me. ;-)

I've enabled comments on that cross-posting about your character, on the off chance that it will entice you into finally defending your claim that I exhibited "bad faith" by daring to point out the asymmetry of your chiding me but not Jim.  Susan, my prediction that George would respond with argument-by-name-calling-assertion failed just as it was obviously designed to, so I'll gladly (and provisionally) cop to having committed a tactical violation of my 11th Commandment -- in order to try to bring Brother Donnelly back from the brink of perdition. :-)  Given his subsequent "wrestling with pigs" remark, my self-sacrifice may have been in vain...

Trent, thanks for the kind words. I have no memory of us having disagreed on anything, so I don't know what to make of your forecast that we might become "amicable enemies" when we've had enough success in shrinking the government.  I generally agree with that sentiment with respect to anarchists, even though it's a little sad to think that my enjoyment of minarchotopia would be marred by some of my government-shrinking anarchist comrades suddenly becoming my enemies. :-)