From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 12:45 PM
To: 'Richard Rider'
Subject: RE: [LPC-candidates] Watch video of police attack on high
school

> you might make the case that the video is not convincing enough

"Convincing enough" for what? I didn't dispute that the video makes the despicable drug war look bad. But for the three specific claims of the web site that I disputed, the video clip simply isn't convincing at all. Call me a stickler if you like, but I know what I read, and I know what I saw, and they do not match.

> But instead you denigrate me

That's simply false.  I didn't mention you or quote from your email. I instead quoted from the website, which made a claim ("as you will see in this video clip") that wasn't even in your email.

> by claiming that the footage is worthless

That's simply false. When I said the video "looks very bad", that obviously implies its utility in opposing the war on drugs.

> and the statements false, which by inference
> attacks the sender.

For the third time: I quoted a claim of the website that was not made in your email. For future reference, please give me a list of all the web sites for which my disagreement with any of their contents constitutes an "attack" on you. :-)

> Why do it that way?

I didn’t do it the way you claim. Why claim I did it in a way that I didn't? 

> Why not say something civil
> such as "I don't think the video fully supports the 
> written claims."

I quoted three particular things that the website -- and not your email -- claimed were observable in the site's video clip, and said I don't see the alleged activities there. I then said "I don't have time to spare for a web site that insults my intelligence by making such obviously false claims."  That's reasonably civil, and I stand by every word of it.

> Your response was a public belittling of the
> sender of the piece because you "don't have time
> to spare for a web site that insults my intelligence
> by making such obviously false claims."

The words you quote from me undermine your claim. I don't see how a criticism of a claim that is on the website (but not in your email) constitutes a "public belittling" of you. However, I can't say the same for the sarcasm that you then directed at me -- to which I'm not responding on the list.

> BTW, the claims were not "obviously false"

You're entitled to your opinion. Mine differs. I've stated my reasons, and they stand unrefuted.

> The sender didn't appreciate your remarks.  At all.

I'm sorry, but your personal standards of appreciation can't be the deciding factor in what I choose to say about web sites that you mention in your emails.

> Such responses only serve to alienate allies.

("Only" makes this a pretty categorical statement. I can think of other purposes that my response served.) If people have unreasonable standards for feeling alienated, I can't accept responsibility for their feelings.

> And I don't need to take a poll to verify that conclusion.

The poll wasn't to verify whether you alone felt alienated. The poll was to ascertain whether I'm "alienating list members" (plural).

> You can do better.

None of us is perfect, and indeed I've chosen to not let the list see the responses that you're receiving here. Are you saying your public response to me was the best you could do -- or even that it was at the same level of civility and personal-ness as mine was?

On the candidates' list, I criticized the MPP, and then you personally critized me. So far I've given you the last word there. The extent to which you want to pursue this in private email is up to you, but be forewarned that I have a policy of responding to any remotely serious criticism of my polemical civility. :-)

Cheers,
Brian