Re: What Direct Democracy Might Look Like

[Ned Latham]

"DRS" wrote in <cmntv1$20d$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> "Ned Latham" wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > "DRS" wrote:
> > > > > "Ned Latham" wrote:
> > > > > > "DRS" wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > > > You're a sad joke. You *still* have no idea what it means
> > > >
> > > > What "it" would that be? "Rational Ignorance", or "democracy"?
> > > >
> > > > If the former, I freely and rationally admit it. Also, I state that
> > > > any "principle" producing the conclusion that democracy is
> > > > anti-democratic is a fatally flawed principle: a nonsense, in fact.
> > >
> > > It could only say that if you were such a moron you'd use two very
> > > different definitions of democracy in the same sentence. Oops! You
> > > just did.
> >
> > Wrong again, moron. There are *no* definitions of democracy in the
> > above statement.
>
> In order for it to mean what your shit for brains wants it to mean there
> must be two definitions in that statement, moron.

Feel free to state those two definitions that you, but no-one sane,
can see.

> > It harks back to your idiotic reply to "Jefferson"
> > in message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
>
> For fuck's sake, dumbfuck, if you must keep posting links to message ids
> post them in a clickable format.

I don't spoonfeed trolls. This is Usenet, not the web. Learn to use it.
Or look in your own "Sent" folder, you moron.

> > > * > > Online technology has now made it technically possible for each
> > > * > > voter to vote on each proposed law.
> > > * >
> > > * > Look up "rational ignorance" and you'll find out why this is
> > > * > fundamentally an anti-democratic idea.
> >
> > It takes a real idiot to opine that giving every citizen a vote
> > on every issue is "fundamentally an anti-democratic idea".
>
> No, it takes a real idiot to ignore the fundamental reason why the
> proposed scheme is antidemocratic even when he's been told what it
> is several times.

You haven't told anyone "what it is", moron. All you've done is
call on the "authority" of a so-called principle that you also
have said nothing about except its name.

If you want to convince anyone with more than half a brain that
democracy is antidemocratic, you'll have to show cause.

Do try to get that simple idea into your pointy little head, hmmm?

> Democracy means "rule of the people"

Yep. IOW, it does *not* mean "the rule of whichever gang of crooks
and liars happens to 'win' an election".

> not "rule of whichever group
> of people happen to form a majority at any given point in time".

Even a "simpleminded show of hands" system isn't that, you moron.
(See if you can work out why.)

> You've admitted you don't know what the principle of Rational
> Ignorance means

Yep.

> and since you've chosen to ignore it

Nope. Feel free to say something more about it than its name any
time you like, moron. I can't wait to see your idea of a "proof"
that democracy is antidemocratic.

> you've
> just ruled yourself out of the argument.

You wish.

> > > > If the latter, you're not only wrong, you're lying again. I have
> > > > repeatedly defined "democracy", including in threads that you've
> > > > participated in, and even in direct response to your own idioctic
> > > > statements about it and misrepresentations of it. From message
> > > > <slrncoj5g1.4ed.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>:
> > >
> > > Your simpleminded misuse of "democracy" only proves you're a
> > > predictable dembfuck, NoddyBot(TM).
> >
> > You're projecting again, moron. But do feel free to tell us *how*
> > democracy is anti-democratic.
>
> I never said anything of the sort, NoddyBot(TM).

Wrong again, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in reply
to "Jefferson":

> * > > Online technology has now made it technically possible for each
> * > > voter to vote on each proposed law.
> * >
> * > Look up "rational ignorance" and you'll find out why this is
> * > fundamentally an anti-democratic idea.

----snip----

> > ...can only be effected by referenda. Switzerland is the only modern
> > country that routinely employs them, and only five per annum.
>
> You know nothing about modern democracy.

Wrong again, moron. I reject your ideological and idiotic misuse of the
word "democracy". The *accurate* term describing the systems you "think"
are democratic is "elective oligarchy". Trot off to your local Uni and
ask someone who's done Political Science 101.

> > > is radically different from your simpleminded
> > > show of hands in the schoolyard nonsense.
> >
> > That simple-minded idea is yours, moron, not mine.
>
> It can't be mine, only you propose it.

Wrong again, moron. I don't propose it. You assume I do. You're a poor
reader and a sloppy thinker. Not to mention dead stupid.

> > And Athenian
> > democracy was "radically different from your simpleminded show
> > of hands in the schoolyard nonsense".
>
> Not fundamentally.

Irrelevant. I quoted your "radically".

> For some reason you want us to go back to that

Wrong again, moron. Learn to read. Then *read* what I write.

> badly flawed form of democracy,

Wrong again, moron. Read some history.

----snip----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrncp5852.l7.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

[DRS]

"Ned Latham" <ned@arthur.valhalla.oz> wrote in message
news:slrncp58ud.l7.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz
> "DRS" wrote in <cmntv1$20d$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
>> "Ned Latham" wrote:
>>> "DRS" wrote:
>>>> Ned Latham wrote:

[...]

>>>>> If the former, I freely and rationally admit it. Also, I state
>>>>> that any "principle" producing the conclusion that democracy is
>>>>> anti-democratic is a fatally flawed principle: a nonsense, in
>>>>> fact.
>>>>
>>>> It could only say that if you were such a moron you'd use two very
>>>> different definitions of democracy in the same sentence. Oops! You
>>>> just did.
>>>
>>> Wrong again, moron. There are *no* definitions of democracy in the
>>> above statement.
>>
>> In order for it to mean what your shit for brains wants it to mean
>> there must be two definitions in that statement, moron.
>
> Feel free to state those two definitions that you, but no-one sane,
> can see.

Participatory and representative.

>>> It harks back to your idiotic reply to "Jefferson"
>>> in message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
>>
>> For fuck's sake, dumbfuck, if you must keep posting links to message
>> ids post them in a clickable format.
>
> I don't spoonfeed trolls. This is Usenet, not the web. Learn to use
> it. Or look in your own "Sent" folder, you moron.

I know how to use it. I've probably been using it longer than you. Then
again, I am far more considerate then you.

>>>> * > > Online technology has now made it technically possible for
>>>> each
>>>> * > > voter to vote on each proposed law.
>>>> * >
>>>> * > Look up "rational ignorance" and you'll find out why this is
>>>> * > fundamentally an anti-democratic idea.
>>>
>>> It takes a real idiot to opine that giving every citizen a vote
>>> on every issue is "fundamentally an anti-democratic idea".
>>
>> No, it takes a real idiot to ignore the fundamental reason why the
>> proposed scheme is antidemocratic even when he's been told what it
>> is several times.
>
> You haven't told anyone "what it is", moron. All you've done is
> call on the "authority" of a so-called principle that you also
> have said nothing about except its name.

I have told you. It's the Principle of Rational Ignorance, the thing you
persistently refuse to look up.

> If you want to convince anyone with more than half a brain that
> democracy is antidemocratic, you'll have to show cause.

I have never said anything even close to that. You're just trying on your
old trick of repeating your lunacies in the hope one will slip through
unnoticed. This time it's the exact same bit of stupidity of yours I've
already dealt with above.

> Do try to get that simple idea into your pointy little head, hmmm?
>
>> Democracy means "rule of the people"
>
> Yep. IOW, it does *not* mean "the rule of whichever gang of crooks
> and liars happens to 'win' an election".

Funnily enough, that's true. How did you stumble on it when you get
everything else about democracy wrong?

>> not "rule of whichever group
>> of people happen to form a majority at any given point in time".
>
> Even a "simpleminded show of hands" system isn't that, you moron.
> (See if you can work out why.)

It is, actually.

>> You've admitted you don't know what the principle of Rational
>> Ignorance means
>
> Yep.
>
>> and since you've chosen to ignore it
>
> Nope. Feel free to say something more about it than its name any
> time you like, moron. I can't wait to see your idea of a "proof"
> that democracy is antidemocratic.
>
>> you've
>> just ruled yourself out of the argument.
>
> You wish.

I know.


[...]

>>> You're projecting again, moron. But do feel free to tell us *how*
>>> democracy is anti-democratic.
>>
>> I never said anything of the sort, NoddyBot(TM).
>
> Wrong again, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in
> reply to "Jefferson":

I don't lie. I have never said anything even close to that. You're just
trying on your old trick of repeating your lunacies in the hope one will
slip through unnoticed. This time it's the exact same bit of stupidity of
yours I've already dealt with above.

> ----snip----
>
>>> ...can only be effected by referenda. Switzerland is the only modern
>>> country that routinely employs them, and only five per annum.
>>
>> You know nothing about modern democracy.
>
> Wrong again, moron. I reject your ideological and idiotic misuse of
> the word "democracy". The *accurate* term describing the systems you
> "think" are democratic is "elective oligarchy". Trot off to your
> local Uni and ask someone who's done Political Science 101.

I did Pol Sci at Melbourne Uni. It's plainly obvious you never did. I am
correctly talking about representative democracy. You have only the
sketchiest understanding of what that means and how it works, which is why
you keep making an unmitigated fool of yourself.

>>>> is radically different from your
>>>> simpleminded show of hands in the schoolyard nonsense.
>>>
>>> That simple-minded idea is yours, moron, not mine.
>>
>> It can't be mine, only you propose it.
>
> Wrong again, moron. I don't propose it. You assume I do. You're a poor
> reader and a sloppy thinker. Not to mention dead stupid.

ROFL! As if.

>>> And Athenian
>>> democracy was "radically different from your simpleminded show
>>> of hands in the schoolyard nonsense".
>>
>> Not fundamentally.
>
> Irrelevant. I quoted your "radically".

You misquoted it. The text in question is this:

"Athens, NoddyBot(TM). But that's not what anyone but you is talking about.
Modern democracy is radically different from your simpleminded show of hands
in the schoolyard nonsense."

Modern democracy, NoddyBot(TM), not ancient Athenian participatory
democracy.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Ned Latham]

"DRS" wrote in <cmvieq$rkg$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:
> > > "Ned Latham" wrote:
> > > > "DRS" wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > > > > > If the former, I freely and rationally admit it. Also, I state
> > > > > > that any "principle" producing the conclusion that democracy is
> > > > > > anti-democratic is a fatally flawed principle: a nonsense, in
> > > > > > fact.
> > > > >
> > > > > It could only say that if you were such a moron you'd use two very
> > > > > different definitions of democracy in the same sentence. Oops! You
> > > > > just did.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again, moron. There are *no* definitions of democracy in the
> > > > above statement.
> > >
> > > In order for it to mean what your shit for brains wants it to mean
> > > there must be two definitions in that statement, moron.
> >
> > Feel free to state those two definitions that you, but no-one sane,
> > can see.
>
> Participatory and representative.

Those are adjectives, you moron, sometimes used to qualify "democracy"
by type. They're not definitions, and they're not relevant to your idiotic
statement to the effect that democracy is anti-democratic.

> > > > It harks back to your idiotic reply to "Jefferson"
> > > > in message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> > >
> > > For fuck's sake, dumbfuck, if you must keep posting links to message
> > > ids post them in a clickable format.
> >
> > I don't spoonfeed trolls. This is Usenet, not the web. Learn to use
> > it. Or look in your own "Sent" folder, you moron.
>
> I know how to use it.

That's why you sooked about a "clickable format"?

> I've probably been using it longer than you.

All that experience and you *still* don't know how to use the most
efficient Usenet message reference there is. Pretty fuckin' stupid,
aincha?

> Then
> again, I am far more considerate then you.

You misspelt "self-deluding", moron.

----snip----

> > > No, it takes a real idiot to ignore the fundamental reason why the
> > > proposed scheme is antidemocratic even when he's been told what it
> > > is several times.
> >
> > You haven't told anyone "what it is", moron. All you've done is
> > call on the "authority" of a so-called principle that you also
> > have said nothing about except its name.
>
> I have told you.

Wrong again, moron. You mouthed a label. You have said *nothing*
about what it refers to.

> It's the Principle of Rational Ignorance, the thing you
> persistently refuse to look up.

I'm not chasing all over the internet looking for something that *you*
think might pass as an argument, moron. If you want to be convincing,
you'll have to make your own case.

> > If you want to convince anyone with more than half a brain that
> > democracy is antidemocratic, you'll have to show cause.
>
> I have never said anything even close to that.

Bullshit, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in reply
to "Jefferson":

> * > > Online technology has now made it technically possible for each
> * > > voter to vote on each proposed law.
> * >
> * > Look up "rational ignorance" and you'll find out why this is
> * > fundamentally an anti-democratic idea.

----snip----

> > > not "rule of whichever group
> > > of people happen to form a majority at any given point in time".
> >
> > Even a "simpleminded show of hands" system isn't that, you moron.
> > (See if you can work out why.)
>
> It is, actually.

Wrong again, moron. Get your head out of your arse anf *think* about what
you said.

----snip----

> > > > You're projecting again, moron. But do feel free to tell us *how*
> > > > democracy is anti-democratic.
> > >
> > > I never said anything of the sort, NoddyBot(TM).
> >
> > Wrong again, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in
> > reply to "Jefferson":
>
> I don't lie.

Wrong again, liar.

First, your statement to Jackeroo" in <ck0igf$gip$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:

> * Um, if you want Noddy to see your message you need to put
> * aus.culture.true-blue back in the headers

That is an implicit statement that you know I don't read any of the
groups into which I'd posted the message "Jackeroo" followed up.

Second, your statement to me in <ckedka$5ov$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:

> * I have no idea which particular groups you're currently reading
> * in apart from act-b.

That contradicts your first statement, which means that at least one
of those two statements is false.

Since both are statements about your own personal knowledge, you have
knowingly uttered them.

A knowingly uttered falsehood is a lie.

You are a liar.

----DRS's further lying, weaselling and evasions snipped----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrncp5852.l7.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

[DRS]

"Ned Latham" <ned@arthur.valhalla.oz> wrote in message
news:slrncp89jc.1dl.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz
> "DRS" wrote in <cmvieq$rkg$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>> "DRS" wrote:
>>>> "Ned Latham" wrote:
>>>>> "DRS" wrote:
>>>>>> Ned Latham wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>>>> If the former, I freely and rationally admit it. Also, I state
>>>>>>> that any "principle" producing the conclusion that democracy is
>>>>>>> anti-democratic is a fatally flawed principle: a nonsense, in
>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could only say that if you were such a moron you'd use two
>>>>>> very different definitions of democracy in the same sentence.
>>>>>> Oops! You just did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong again, moron. There are *no* definitions of democracy in the
>>>>> above statement.
>>>>
>>>> In order for it to mean what your shit for brains wants it to mean
>>>> there must be two definitions in that statement, moron.
>>>
>>> Feel free to state those two definitions that you, but no-one sane,
>>> can see.
>>
>> Participatory and representative.
>
> Those are adjectives, you moron, sometimes used to qualify "democracy"
> by type. They're not definitions,

There are definitions for each type which everybody who understands
democracy knows by heart.

> and they're not relevant to your
> idiotic statement to the effect that democracy is anti-democratic.

I never said it was. That has to be about the fifth time you've tried that
particular lie on and been caught for your trouble. If you were a real
person, NoddyBot(TM), you'd be ashamed of yourself by now.

>>>>> It harks back to your idiotic reply to "Jefferson"
>>>>> in message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
>>>>
>>>> For fuck's sake, dumbfuck, if you must keep posting links to
>>>> message ids post them in a clickable format.
>>>
>>> I don't spoonfeed trolls. This is Usenet, not the web. Learn to use
>>> it. Or look in your own "Sent" folder, you moron.
>>
>> I know how to use it.
>
> That's why you sooked about a "clickable format"?

I'm sick of having to cut and paste stuff that if you really wanted me to
see you'd have posted in a clickable format.

>> I've probably been using it longer than you.
>
> All that experience and you *still* don't know how to use the most
> efficient Usenet message reference there is. Pretty fuckin' stupid,
> aincha?

You're lying again, NoddyBot(TM). I do know how to use it and what's more
you know that I do since I've responded to such posts of yours in the recent
past.

>>
>> Then again, I am far more considerate then you.
>
> You misspelt "self-deluding", moron.

No, I spelt considerate correctly. It's just a word that will never be
applied to you.

>> It's the Principle of Rational Ignorance, the thing
>> you persistently refuse to look up.
>
> I'm not chasing all over the internet looking for something that *you*
> think might pass as an argument, moron. If you want to be convincing,
> you'll have to make your own case.

You fucking hypocrite. A few paragraphs up you're having a go at me because
I will no longer chase down links you post that aren't formatted for my
convenience and here you are trying to pretend a Google search on "Rational
Ignorance" is too hard for you. Then again, it most likely is.

>>> If you want to convince anyone with more than half a brain that
>>> democracy is antidemocratic, you'll have to show cause.
>>
>> I have never said anything even close to that.
>
> Bullshit, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in reply
> to "Jefferson":

There you go again, lying and being caught lying.

>> * > > Online technology has now made it technically possible for each
>> * > > voter to vote on each proposed law.
>> * >
>> * > Look up "rational ignorance" and you'll find out why this is
>> * > fundamentally an anti-democratic idea.

Yes, I said that. It doesn't even come close to how you keep deliberately
misrepresenting it. A real person would be embarrassed by posting a cite
which proves them wrong, but not you NoddyBot(TM).

> ----snip----
>
>>>> not "rule of whichever group
>>>> of people happen to form a majority at any given point in time".
>>>
>>> Even a "simpleminded show of hands" system isn't that, you moron.
>>> (See if you can work out why.)
>>
>> It is, actually.
>
> Wrong again, moron. Get your head out of your arse anf *think* about
> what you said.

I'm still right. Deal.

> ----snip----
>
>>>>> You're projecting again, moron. But do feel free to tell us *how*
>>>>> democracy is anti-democratic.
>>>>
>>>> I never said anything of the sort, NoddyBot(TM).
>>>
>>> Wrong again, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in
>>> reply to "Jefferson":
>>
>> I don't lie.
>
> Wrong again, liar.

Er, no. You're the pathological liar here and no amount of your reposting
stuff which has long ago been dealt with to your utter humiliation won't
change that, NoddyBot(TM).

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Ned Latham]

"DRS" wrote in <cn1v7o$jme$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > "DRS" wrote:
> > > > > "Ned Latham" wrote:
> > > > > > "DRS" wrote:
> > > > > > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > > > > > If the former, I freely and rationally admit it. Also,
> > > > > > > > I state that any "principle" producing the conclusion
> > > > > > > > that democracy is anti-democratic is a fatally flawed
> > > > > > > > principle: a nonsense, in fact.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It could only say that if you were such a moron you'd use
> > > > > > > two very different definitions of democracy in the same
> > > > > > > sentence. Oops! You just did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong again, moron. There are *no* definitions of democracy
> > > > > > in the above statement.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order for it to mean what your shit for brains wants it
> > > > > to mean there must be two definitions in that statement, moron.
> > > >
> > > > Feel free to state those two definitions that you, but no-one sane,
> > > > can see.
> > >
> > > Participatory and representative.
> >
> > Those are adjectives, you moron, sometimes used to qualify "democracy"
> > by type. They're not definitions,
>
> There are definitions for each type which everybody who understands
> democracy knows by heart.

Irrelevant. Neither definitions of democracy nor the adjectives you gave
are present in the statement of which you alleged I had given "two very
different definitions of democracy".

> > and they're not relevant to your
> > idiotic statement to the effect that democracy is anti-democratic.
>
> I never said it was.

Wrong again, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in reply
to "Jefferson":

> * > > Online technology has now made it technically possible for each
> * > > voter to vote on each proposed law.
> * >
> * > Look up "rational ignorance" and you'll find out why this is
> * > fundamentally an anti-democratic idea.

> That has to be about the fifth time you've tried that
> particular lie on and been caught for your trouble.

Get out of denial mode, liar. You haven't addressed it at all, except
to pretend that mouthing the name of a "principle" you can't elucidate
somwhow makes it go away.

> If you were a real
> person, NoddyBot(TM), you'd be ashamed of yourself by now.

Everybody makes mistakes, moron. I'm not as vindictive as you.
I forgive myself the error of once thinking that you might be
honest and intelligent enough to be worthy of some respect.

----snip----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrncp5852.l7.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

[Ned Latham]

"DRS" wrote in <cn1v7o$jme$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > "DRS" wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > > > > > It harks back to your idiotic reply to "Jefferson"
> > > > > > in message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> > > > >
> > > > > For fuck's sake, dumbfuck, if you must keep posting links to
> > > > > message ids post them in a clickable format.
> > > >
> > > > I don't spoonfeed trolls. This is Usenet, not the web. Learn to use
> > > > it. Or look in your own "Sent" folder, you moron.
> > >
> > > I know how to use it.
> >
> > That's why you sooked about a "clickable format"?
>
> I'm sick of having to cut and paste stuff that if you really wanted me to
> see you'd have posted in a clickable format.

I told you, troll. I don't spoonfeed trolls. This is Usenet, not the web.
Learn to use it. Or look in your own "Sent" folder, you moron.

> > > I've probably been using it longer than you.
> >
> > All that experience and you *still* don't know how to use the most
> > efficient Usenet message reference there is. Pretty fuckin' stupid,
> > aincha?
>
> You're lying again, NoddyBot(TM). I do know how to use it and what's
> more you know that I do since I've responded to such posts of yours
> in the recent past.

Let's see you show something you think might pass as evidence of that,
liar.

----snip----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrncp5852.l7.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

[Ned Latham]

"DRS" wrote in <cn1v7o$jme$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:

----snip----

> > > It's the Principle of Rational Ignorance, the thing
> > > you persistently refuse to look up.
> >
> > I'm not chasing all over the internet looking for something that *you*
> > think might pass as an argument, moron. If you want to be convincing,
> > you'll have to make your own case.
>
> You fucking hypocrite.

Quit projecting, liar.

> A few paragraphs up you're having a go at
> me because I will no longer chase down links you post that aren't
> formatted for my convenience

Conveniece for your incompetence.

> and here you are trying to pretend
> a Google search on "Rational Ignorance" is too hard for you.

Wrong again, liar. Rejecting your attempt to shove the responsibility
for making your "argument" onto me.

I will *not* trawl the web for a site that *you* accept as an
authority on "Rational Ignorance", and I will *not* trawl through
who knows how many kilobytes of waffle in order to find what *you*
think is "evidence" that democracy is anti-democratic.

Do your own research, you lazy, lying, posturing poltroon.

----snip----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrncp5852.l7.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

[Ned Latham]

"DRS" wrote in <cn1v7o$jme$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > "DRS" wrote:

----snip----

> > > > If you want to convince anyone with more than half a brain that
> > > > democracy is antidemocratic, you'll have to show cause.
> > >
> > > I have never said anything even close to that.
> >
> > Bullshit, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in reply
> > to "Jefferson":
>
> There you go again, lying and being caught lying.

Get out of denial mode, liar. You haven't addressed it at all, except
to pretend that mouthing the name of a "principle" you can't elucidate
somehow makes it go away.

> > > * > > Online technology has now made it technically possible for each
> > > * > > voter to vote on each proposed law.
> > > * >
> > > * > Look up "rational ignorance" and you'll find out why this is
> > > * > fundamentally an anti-democratic idea.
>
> Yes, I said that. It doesn't even come close to how you keep deliberately
> misrepresenting it.

Feel free to state what you'd like us believe it means then, liar.

----snip----

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrncp5852.l7.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7

[Ned Latham]

"DRS" wrote in <cn1v7o$jme$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > "DRS" wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > "DRS" wrote:

----snip----

> > > > > not "rule of whichever group
> > > > > of people happen to form a majority at any given point in time".
> > > >
> > > > Even a "simpleminded show of hands" system isn't that, you moron.
> > > > (See if you can work out why.)
> > >
> > > It is, actually.
> >
> > Wrong again, moron. Get your head out of your arse and *think* about
> > what you said.
>
> I'm still right. Deal.

Your pathetic "nyah nyah" doesn't help you, moron. Get your head out of
your arse and *think* about what you said.

> > > > > > You're projecting again, moron. But do feel free to tell us
> > > > > > *how* democracy is anti-democratic.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never said anything of the sort, NoddyBot(TM).
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again, liar. Your message <cmahk4$adm$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> in
> > > > reply to "Jefferson":
> > >
> > > I don't lie.
> >
> > Wrong again, liar.
>
> Er, no.

Wrong again, liar.

> You're the pathological liar here

You're projecting, liar. With (why am I not surprised?) Stupid Troll
Trick 2a, the Copycat Trick.

> and no amount of your
> reposting stuff which has long ago been dealt with

....by denial and surreptitious snipping?

Get your hand off it.

> to your utter
> humiliation

Larf. You're projecting again, loser.

> won't change that, NoddyBot(TM).

No amount of your surreptitious snipping to hide the proof of your
mendacity will succeed, liar, because I *will* keep putting it back:

First, your statement to Jackeroo" in <ck0igf$gip$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:

> * Um, if you want Noddy to see your message you need to put
> * aus.culture.true-blue back in the headers

That is an implicit statement that you know I don't read any of the
groups into which I'd posted the message "Jackeroo" followed up.

Second, your statement to me in <ckedka$5ov$1@lust.ihug.co.nz>:

> * I have no idea which particular groups you're currently reading
> * in apart from act-b.

That contradicts your first statement, which means that at least one
of those two statements is false.

Since both are statements about your own personal knowledge, you have
knowingly uttered them.

A knowingly uttered falsehood is a lie.

You are a liar.

Ned
--
True Blue FAQ: <slrncp5852.l7.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz>
Public key: http://pgp.mit.edu/ http://www.keyserver.net/en/
Fingerprint: D17C FDD5 BBA8 8687 42E3 C8F2 C9FB 0314 E17A 0CD7