Time: Thu Nov 14 06:48:46 1996
To:
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: cattle cars for humans
Cc:
Bcc: liberty lists
Dear Harry,
Do you resort to ad hominems often?
Just asking, you know ... :)
Harry, honestly, I don't want to fight
with you. I believe in due caution,
but there are times when we have to
choose which error we are willing to make:
either ignore a real problem, or raise
a warning when the alarm may be false. Take
the fire department, for example. They
much prefer to show up at a false alarm,
than to arrive late and know that lives
were lost. I believe there is enough
"hard evidence" (as you might call it)
of a systematic war against the American
People to render such a "rumor" of cattle
cars for humans worthy of examination, at least.
It happened once before; it can happen
again, right here in River City. Would that
we could always be perfectly correct in our
efforts to distinguish real fires from
false alarms. I was trained in statistics
and decision theory: in a pinch, we move
into a different mode of decision making,
one in which we may have to make very
quick comparative assessments of maximum
probable damages, choose the smallest maximum,
and then live with the consequences of those
quick decisions. This is called management,
and it is forever challenging during combat
(challenging forever?)
So, if we are "wrong" about the cattle cars for humans,
we have ruffled a few feathers. No big deal. If
we are wrong in ignoring them, and they really ARE
for humans, then the potential cost is astronomical
(assuming, of course, that human life is something
which you treasure and not hate.) I take it that
compelling yourself to read a post with which you
strongly disagree is a big deal to you. Am I right?
Now, the way this originally got started,
an associate of mine simply asked the
question if anybody had any more information
about this. As a service to him, I took it
upon myself to forward his posting to
other lists of which I am a member. You
happened to be on one of those lists, and
someone else decided that I should be the
one to make calls to the company and do
the detailed investigation. Since I cannot
afford to subside such research on my own,
I objected strongly, in part because so many
people are now asking me to do pro bono work.
This is something which you either do not
know about me, or you do not believe about me
(which one it is, I don't really care), or YOU
don't really care to know. That's fine.
Please read on, however.
For your information, I acted similarly when
evidence started pouring forth about CDC
complicity in the Gulf War Syndrome. I took
some rather strong, even drastic action to
confront the CDC. I would have been the first
to admit, publicly, that I was totally wrong
about the CDC; as it turned out, I was absolutely
right about the CDC, if sworn Senate testimony
by a former U.S. Senator, and direct personal
experience by an infected Navy Captain, are to be
given any credence at all. It would have been
so much better for everyone if the GWS were just
a rumor, and we all could just go back home --
false alarm, not to worry, everything is fine, yes?
Now, when it comes to some "report" of cattle cars
for humans, a la the Third Reich revisited, the
original question is worthy of an answer: Does
anybody else have any more information about this?
That was the original question, paraphrased.
I did volunteer to forward that question to others
who might be in a position to help. That was the
extent of my "help," if you will. One person on
the entire Internet has decided to attack me, using
petty insults and other trivia, to undermine what
I did. The last time this happened to me, the
person who did that was trying mightily to hide something
rather horrible in his own life. Please tell me
that you are not trying to hide something here.
I will believe you if you do. But, please, do yourself
a favor: ad hominems do not fly very well with the vast
majority of my associates on the Internet. What I mean
by this is that they are wholly unpersuaded by this tactic,
and usually remember the source for a very long time.
Good day to you, Sir.
/s/ Paul Mitchell
At 11:37 PM 11/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>
>> I left out one thing:
>> nobody is compelling you
>> to read this, are they?
>> I certainly am not.
>>
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>
>Yes, someone is: myself. This is because my sense of justice and fair
>play persuades me that even the feeble-minded should be accorded fair
>hearing until they demonstrate by their own words that none further is
>necessary. And you have, regretfully, done that all too well, Mr. Mitchell.
>
>OBTW, "Counselor-at-law", given the scope of your understanding of the
>applicability of the First Amendment, I wouldn't give up my day job, if
>I were you.
>
>-----
>Harry Barnett <harryb@eskimo.com>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail