Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: Moderation (Re: SCI.philosophy.objectivism)
Message-ID: <17918@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 12 Feb 90 06:03:48 GMT
References: <1990Feb11.061130.995@twwells.com>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Followup-To: comp.archives
Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service
Lines: 78

In article <1990Feb11.061130.995@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
>None of your fucking business. And I'm not in the business of
>doing things for *your* entertainment.

raw nerve!  wow!  i've not seen this much response from someone
on the net since my last really good posting to alt.flame.  gee,
i can hardly wait for the sequel.

>Not only that, but what does the one have to do with the other? 
>Even imagining I had lied on the one issue, calling me a liar on 
>the other when the evidence is against it is contemptible, and 
>especially so in an Objectivist.

huh?  you either are or aren't a liar.  being a liar on only
one issue merely means you do not lie all of the time.  you
have lost credibility.  hoping to be a part-time liar won't
help you gain it back.  abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

>: You said you were going to sue Richard and you said you were
>: going to be doing it the next day.  I've yet to hear anything
>: new about the lawsuit.
>
>So? Got a hotline to god? Keeping an eye on my personal affairs?
>Let's put it this way: even if there were a suit going on right
>now (there isn't), what reason do you suppose I might have for
>broadcasting that fact? Or the others to do so?

now bill, let me clear things up for our gentle readers.  on
january 9th you informed me that your were going to contact
your lawyer.  you also informed me that your had a considerable
amount of financial resources behind you and that spending the
money wouldn't be a bother for you.

in my reply to you of the same day i suggested that your either
shut up, or get on with the business of suing richard.  since i
am aware of your current non-lawsuit status and since you have
not yet shut up regarding this proposed legal action, i can only
point out that you have made yourself look like an incredible
idiot.

>But since you are so hot on keeping this topic in the public eye:
>the lawyer I originally consulted wanted me to spend kilobucks on
>furthering his education; I've found a new one who is not quite so
>greedy. Just as soon as I finish the half a dozen *constructive*
>things I've got on the fire I'll actually go in for an
>appointment....

i don't care if you tell us exactly how many kilobucks [ or
megapennies, for that matter ] your attorney asked for.  as i've
stated to you on several occassions, any responsible and
respectable lawyer will tell you to save your money.  besides,
you're rich, right?  you said so yourself.  maybe you were lying?
we've all seen your beggings for jobs in your .signatures.

tell you what, if someone could come up with the proper counter-suit
against you [ notably one which included legal fees ... ] i would
be willing to invest several kilobucks myself against a reasonable
rate of return.  you didn't get a less greedy lawyer, you got a
less smart one.

besides, you've already priced the cost of a federal court suit,
remember?  even i told you it would be very expensive against
non-existent damages.  do you remember writing

	"I make scads of money and have no debts to speak of.
	 I've already priced the cost of a Federal suit (because
	 I was considering challenging a particular state law),
	 and it is well within my means."

>:                         Maybe you were lying?
>
>Maybe you don't know what you are talking about?

naw, judging from your response, i know exactly what i am talking
about.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                             UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832                           Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org