WendyMcElroy.com

Re: Introducing Jamie

That is correct.  So I presume someone had to tell Richard Brent that he was mentioned here (or at least that James Redford was posting here). 

Re: Introducing Jamie

Another possibility, given that Redford is a prolific cross-poster, is that Redford posted a link to one of his threads in this forum in another forum or comment-section that is indexed, and Brent noticed the link and followed it.

Re: Introducing Jamie

Proxy servers.

But I doubt its JR. He's way too chatty and he would have just quoited himself.

Re: Introducing Jamie

Can't face palm hard enough.

Requires detaching your arms and getting a running start. Maybe automobile airbags could propel your hands fast enough.

Re: Introducing Jamie

Not that an introduction was needed (most have figured it out anyway). Here per Anti-State.com where early writings of his "Jesus Is an Anarchist" obsession were published in December 2001:

Quote

Born in Austin, Texas and raised in the Leander, Texas hill country, the native-born Augustinian James Redford is a young born again Christian who was converted from atheism by a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. He is a scientific rationalist who considers that the Omega Point (i.e., the physicists' technical term for God) is an unavoidable result of the known laws of physics. His personal website can be found here: http://geocities.com/vonchloride

... so he's been on this bandwagon for at least a dozen years.

Jamie, is that you over on the oocities archive? Must be, it states:

Quote

FEATURE PRESENTATION!: Jesus Is an Anarchist: A Free-Market, Libertarian Anarchist, That Is--Otherwise What Is Called an Anarcho-Capitalist by none other than yours truly.

And points to your "Jesus Is an Anarchist" article.

So my guess is that we'll be soon hearing about:
- The FBI trying to bring the World Trade Center down in 1993
- The OKC bombing being a staged event by the US government
- US Government complicity in the 9/11 attacks
... or is that now in the forgotten past?

I suppose the oocities stuff could be a forgery though. Maybe Stephan Kinsella trying to plagiarise your work again.

N. Stephan Kinsella is a general cad to anyone who he imagines ruffles his feathers. I just thanked him for using something I had imparted to him, and he treated me like I had grown two heads while at the same time kicking his dog down the street.

When he figuratively ripped my head off for my thanks to him, he stated that he had no clue as to what in the world I was talking about.

I then produced my email exchanges with him demonstrating that he got the notion of "ought from an ought" from me.

Whereupon he implied that I must be some sort of unhinged individual for keeping such email communications for so long. I then explained to him that they were saved within my Yahoo! Mail service without any special action required upon my part.

---

But such has often been the usual course of my life. I get abused for helping people, though abused by helping them by imparting information to them that they don't want. Which, historically, as been pretty much the quickest way to a brutal death.

And I really can't get all that worked up about "plagiarism". That was never my point with my discussions with Kinsella. I love it greatly when people "plagiarize" me. And I have often noticed when people take writings of mine without crediting me. Far from having any problem with it, it delights me.

But then one shouldn't act like I've sprouted multiple craniums for my thanks in using something I had imparted to said one, let alone act like I had just tortured their beloved canine.

So I got treated like "poop", even though I had done nothing wrong, and even though I had imparted something to someone that they found valuable.

But I love N. Stephan Kinsella if for no other reason than because I cite him in my article "Libertarian Anarchism Is Apodictically Correct". In my observations of him on the Anti-State.com forum, he came off as a cruddy person in his interactions with other people.

At any rate, the reason I think (nay, know) N. Stephan Kinsella treats people cruddily is because he is a raging antitheist. He might object to that characterization of him, but nevertheless, it's perfectly true. The reason he treats so many people like poop is because he has no incentive in his mind to treat them better, if he should think of them as simply problems for him.

And from his Weltanschauung, he is perfectly right.

Note that I'm not even saying that this is anything conscious on his part. Almost certainly it's not.

Re: Introducing Jamie

I have met Stephan Kinsella on several occasions, had dinner with him, and have even been invited to his home, and I can say that my personal experience contradicts your narrative in every respect.  He is an intelligent and gracious man, and we are honored to enjoy his friendship.  I suspect that he has a tendency not to suffer fools gladly -- I recall the example of someone trying to organize a boycott of the Mises Institute, which prompted this pointed reply from Wendy, but a much pithier reply from Stephan (as I recall) involving the gentleman and the horse he rode in on.  I would judge that if you received such a reply from him, it was probably called for.

But such has often been the usual course of my life. I get abused for helping people, though abused by helping them by imparting information to them that they don't want.

I have no doubt that "such has often been the usual course" of your life, and that you get "abused" by many different people.  In which case an intelligent man, and a scientist, would search for a common factor in all those situations.  Here's a hint: it isn't them.

Re: Introducing Jamie

I have met Stephan Kinsella on several occasions, had dinner with him, and have even been invited to his home, and I can say that my personal experience contradicts your narrative in every respect.  He is an intelligent and gracious man, and we are honored to enjoy his friendship.  I suspect that he has a tendency not to suffer fools gladly -- I recall the example of someone trying to organize a boycott of the Mises Institute, which prompted this pointed reply from Wendy, but a much pithier reply from Stephan (as I recall) involving the gentleman and the horse he rode in on.  I would judge that if you received such a reply from him, it was probably called for.

Quote from: James Redford on Today at 03:19:05 AM

But such has often been the usual course of my life. I get abused for helping people, though abused by helping them by imparting information to them that they don't want.

I have no doubt that "such has often been the usual course" of your life, and that you get "abused" by many different people.  In which case an intelligent man, and a scientist, would search for a common factor in all those situations.  Here's a hint: it isn't them.

But, then, Brad R, you are also a raging antitheist. And you treat me like defecatory matter.

It's like Nazis finding other Nazis to be delightful people. I never doubted that they did.