Support for Paul

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Sun Sep 16, 2007 11:42 pm

they are not semantic games, its what i honestly think. most of what you posted i addressed without directly quoting or referring to you. so despite avoiding people with your posting style i gave you a direct opportunity after you repeatedly said 'i dont get it.'

might want to step back and look at the discussion differently since we are approaching this from such different ways i dont think its going to appease you - but its not my responsibility to. we dont agree, and i might be wrong, but i think that frustrates you.

Flammepus · Post by **Flammepus** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:53 am

Here is my take:

I was very interested in seeing the pavillion (regardless of what anyone else feels/felt about its merits). The pavillion and its associated art was one of the reasons that I thought that this year would be a good one to go to the considerable expense of taking a 5000+mile trip to return to BRC after an absence of some years.

I think that the arsonist should recieve whatever sentence the law demands. After that, I would be more than happy to radically express myself as part of a class action suit to recover 10% of my ticket price for his criminal act which led to my experience being curtailed. I am normally not a fan of litigation, nor does USD 25 mean SFA for me in the big picture. It would be a way to radically express my views of his actions. In fact, I would be willing to donate my share of any settlement to burners without borders...

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:05 am

Flammepus wrote:In fact, I would be willing to donate my share of any settlement to burners without borders...

Well said, damnit.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:12 am

Some people contending the little shithead is an artist, not an arsonist, also say they want some sort of democratic community (drink!) ownership [sic] of Burning Man. The Catch-22 is many also pine for the days of "anarchy".

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:18 am

spectabillis wrote:
[CDS] topher wrote:If you weren't, you're just justifying the actions of someone you agree with.

spectabillis wrote:why do you think i am justifying it?
Umm...maybe because you're apparently rabidly defending his actions?

spectabillis wrote:were there people trapped inside the pavillian? if not, please explain how it started and how the people moved from under it because i think you are the first eye-witness to post that they watched him start the fire. did you warn people?

I wasn't focused on him (adis), I was focused on being at the man, during an eclipse, with two of my close friends. Did I see MULTIPLE people running from the structure AFTER the fire started? Yes, absolutely. Did I watch as rangers/DPW/Emergency services/whoever set up a perimeter to keep people away, AFTER the fire had be set? yes. Were people trapped? How the fuck should I know? I wasn't inside.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:43 am

[CDS] topher wrote:Umm...maybe because you're apparently rabidly defending his actions?

no, our immediate discussion is - not being dangerous as most are playing it up to be. thats not a defense of his actions.

did I see MULTIPLE people running from the structure AFTER the fire started? Yes, absolutely. Did I watch as rangers/DPW/Emergency services/whoever set up a perimeter to keep people away, AFTER the fire had be set? yes. Were people trapped? How the fuck should I know? I wasn't inside.

then how do you know people were at serious risk of loosing their lives? and give an example of 'serious.'

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:46 am

Flammepus wrote:I would be more than happy to radically express myself as part of a class action suit to recover 10% of my ticket price for his criminal act which led to my experience being curtailed.

wow.

after i am done with people's exaggeration of danger i want to start a separate topic on that.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:22 am

spectabillis wrote: said a bunch of stuff i <<snip>>

\/
so spec you support terroism as a way to force me to change my thoughts on burning man..

terror by fire is pretty scary.. should i kneel before this or should i defend my right to free thought?

your little fire bug asshole is a terrorist.. he should do big time as an example for all you knee jerk crimials.. those that want to force againest my freedoms with violance...

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:23 am

You want to start another thread, isn't this what you have been arguing the whole time? Why another thread to say the same thing? There are already multiple threads on this subject. You have posted in all of them.

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:36 am

So someone I know who is a key individual on the man base crew made a private post the other day about meeting and talking with Assless at a club over the weekend. I will not go into details because it wasn't my post but basically Assless is an attention seeking whore that has some of you duped to think he did something worthy. Mentally unstable tirads and gibberish without a hint of personal responsibility. I don't necessarily think he deserves the maximun sentence, but he sure as hell needs to experience some conseqences for what he did, and probably needs some counseling too.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:53 am

unjonharley wrote:so spec you support terroism as a way to force me to change my thoughts on burning man..

nope.

You want to start another thread, isn't this what you have been arguing the whole time?

i dont want to, but these discussions dont seem to be able to separate different things out to focus on, its hard to sift through whats relevant or not especially with emotionally charged issues. unfortunately bbs software doesnt work to support that.

Teo del Fuego · Post by **Teo del Fuego** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:39 am

tired of bickering? Then take a break and post somethiing in my thread over at 2007 Art and Performance entitled Positive Vibes about Great Art and Acts. Try it, say something good about all the incredibly wonderful things out there this year! Take a moment and rejoice!

We resume our regularly scheduled programming

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:12 pm

Bob wrote:The Catch-22 is many also pine for the days of "anarchy".

That's fine. They can have anarchy. It cuts both ways: if they disagree with the Ten Principles and wish for the return of the bad ol' days, they can find another empty space and go balls out...and deal with the legal repercussions when the authorities show up.

To borrow a phrase from the BDSM community: I do not consent.

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:24 pm

spectabillis wrote:
[CDS] topher wrote:Umm...maybe because you're apparently rabidly defending his actions?
no, our immediate discussion is - not being dangerous as most are playing it up to be. thats not a defense of his actions.

did I see MULTIPLE people running from the structure AFTER the fire started? Yes, absolutely. Did I watch as rangers/DPW/Emergency services/whoever set up a perimeter to keep people away, AFTER the fire had be set? yes. Were people trapped? How the fuck should I know? I wasn't inside.
then how do you know people were at serious risk of loosing their lives? and give an example of 'serious.'

Anyone who isn't aware of a large fire (especially one that could, depending on how the man was constructed this year, become explosive and/or significantly more severe at a moment's notice) in their immediate vicinity are, logically, at serious risk.

I love fire, and playing with it, and everything good that comes with it. And I love pranks. On the other hand, I have some personal experience with fire - and close proximity to it - that many folks don't.

In July of 1977, the house I grew up in burned to the ground in the Santa Barbara Sycamore Canyon Fire. Our gas tank exploded, destroying everything that was left, and we left with nothing but the clothes on our backs and our van. My mom and sisters barely made it out in time, and my dad and I stayed a short time to try and save what we could...and failed. By the time we both got out, we were lucky to not be cooked alive in the firestorm.

So I have a healthy respect for the dangers inherent in unintended fires. This was, to all but this jackass, an unintended fire. The fact that I saw people running AFTER the fire was lit from underneath the structure is, therefore, logical proof that people were at serious risk.

What sort of punishment is justified is a separate issue...but giving the jackass ANY sort of credit for "creative expression", "fighting BMOrg", or whatever is simply inexcusable. He put people at serious risk, right in front of my eyes. So, yes: guilty, deserving of severe punishment,
and stupid as hell.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:13 pm

i was wanting to read a specific case where the arson put someone there at 'serious' risk - an example more than 'because it was ignited around people' and takes the situation into account.

so far there is nothing to show someone almost lost their life, not even close.

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:43 pm

spectabillis wrote:so far there is nothing to show someone almost lost their life, not even close.

This is a good thing.

Why is it relevant? Should there have been a "close call" or "severe injury" or "a death" for jackass' actions to warrant arrest and imprisonment?

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:51 pm

its relevant because you say people were at serious risk, yet you cant back that up.

[CDS] topher · Post by **[CDS] topher** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 4:16 pm

spectabillis wrote:its relevant because you say people were at serious risk, yet you cant back that up.

If you need remedial English lessons let me know, I'll do what I can.

Otherwise, refer to paragraph 1, four posts up, where I explicityly explain why people were at "serious risk".

Otherwise, I think I might refrain from continuing posting in this thread, as it seems to have devolved into you shouting down anyone who disagrees with your support for a felon.

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:00 pm

spectabillis wrote:its relevant because you say people were at serious risk, yet you cant back that up.

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah ... same stupid argument over and over and over. It is if you have never read one word anyone has said. You seem to be quite ignorant of the law or how it works. I don't agree with the law all the time and think much of it is totally corrupt, but please if you tried to use these same arguments in a real court of law you would be shut down and silenced in a second. An objection would be made as to the fact that your arguments are irrelevant and it would surly be sustained. I don't think the judge would have as much patience listening to your justifications as many of us have. Maybe if you make another thread like you said you were going to and use the same unreasoned arguments it would make more sense, but somehow I think it would just be the same thing all over. blah blah blah blah...

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:08 pm

oh keee-rist.

that reaction shows a big reason why you're not objective. when somone avoids generalities and presses you on a specific issue, you cant defend it and react with insults and avoidance.

its unfortunate you make innuendo's like a lack of skill in understanding english, you really need to be an adult over it. but you also implied i am shouting you down. its obvious i made several valid attempts to ask you specifically for examples while elaborating on what i meant. then you repeat that i am supporting the arsonist when i have already told you, specficially, that i dont.

the paragraph you refer to...

Anyone who isn't aware of a large fire (especially one that could, depending on how the man was constructed this year, become explosive and/or significantly more severe at a moment's notice) in their immediate vicinity are, logically, at serious risk.

... didnt show how people were in serious risk of life, just that there may have been a risk thats not much different from other dangerous elements in the surrounding environment.

from all acounts there was little risk, and you have said nothing to reverse that.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:14 pm

really Jordan 10-E, if you dont have something constructive to add why not just leave it alone?

if someone makes the attempt at a specific and more serious minded discussion your responses are not helping. and if someone chooses not to reply to you for those reasons, they dont have an obligation to accomodate you. there are many different topics and you have the option of starting your own, why not do that and make an attempt at being respectful of everyone else?

Dork · Post by **Dork** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:18 pm

This discussion is the most boring tennis match I've ever watched. Yet I can't stop coming in every time I see a new post.

I need help.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:26 pm

Dork wrote:This discussion is the most boring tennis match I've ever watched. Yet I can't stop coming in every time I see a new post.

I need help.

\/
i m watching spec building a head of steam defending the little prick fire bug..

then he can self justify comitting his "own" act of terrosim..

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 5:31 pm

yeah.. there's this really strange attractor at work in internet debates despite how bad they are.

and unjohn, please, i dont support the arsonist and i am far from building up any steam. i had to deal with so many childish, over-dramatic, sociopathic, ignorant, self-absorbed, rightous people here for so long that it doesnt effect me that way.

Jordan 10-E · Post by **Jordan 10-E** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:03 pm

spectabillis wrote:i dont support the arsonist...

Hey at least you are starting to acknowledge the truth.

I am done with this, for now. I have said my piece. People can take it for what it is. I might chime in later, but for now I am done with this match (no pun intended).

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:35 pm

I've never been on this e-playa thing before, but after reading over this debate which I think is quite important to me... I felt like replying.

I have to say... Specta made a argument that there has not be presented substantial evidence that anyone was in any real grave danger.

Others have tried to show evidence to the contrary. I personally don't see their effort as being fruitful... yet.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:41 pm

Mandy Wonder wrote:I've never been on this e-playa thing before, but after reading over this debate which I think is quite important to me... I felt like replying.

I have to say... Specta made a argument that there has not be presented substantial evidence that anyone was in any real grave danger.

Others have tried to show evidence to the contrary. I personally don't see their effort as being fruitful... yet.

that was all a straw man.. the issue here is the guy that set the fire is a criminal and need to be in jail..

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:11 pm

A: This is not a straw man...

the issue here is the guy that set the fire is a criminal and need to be in jail..

Specta is trying to clarify weather people were in real danger, because that affects the seriousness of the action and thus the consequences of that action. It helps to understand what kind of action it was.

B: It would help to divide this moral issue into 2 domains.
1. Is it ethical outside the law? (example: when is lying bad?)
2. Is the law just? (example: 60years in prison for child lying to 5th grade teacher or after school detention?)

By dividing the issue into these two realms we can better understand what is going on. (Not in 2 posts, but in our heads... if that is possible)

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:21 pm

Where do you live, Mandy Wonder?

Is it common where your live to burn churches or theaters with people inside and not expect to be prosecuted?

Mandy Wonder · Post by **Mandy Wonder** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:22 pm

If you need remedial English lessons let me know, I'll do what I can.

Otherwise, I think I might refrain from continuing posting in this thread, as it seems to have devolved into you shouting down anyone who disagrees with your support for a felon.

CDS-Topher:
Being sassy and condescending like remedial English is not helping your argument, but it frowns upon your character.

Also: it seems to have devolved into you shouting down anyone who disagrees with your support for a felon.
I do not see this being the case. He's not shouting at anyone but trying to get a logical argument out of you who disagree. You have failed to do so, it seems. You have also used sassy rhetoric and shown your anger. It looks like you are the one shouting.
[/i][/code]

Support for Paul

Re: Pfffffftht!

Re: Pfffffftht!

Re: Pfffffftht!