RE: Compassion

[John Harrell <johnbharrell@yahoo.com>]

Mr. Joe Huffman,

I would think you can do better than that. Direct ad hominum attacks on 
the person you are having a discussion with shows that your argument is
weak such that all you can do is lash out. If you are going to reduce
the level of discussion with respect to the person you are having the 
discussion you try to couch it in clever or humourous ways. Let me try.

Mr. Huffman, as a person that teaches gun handling and also frequents
nudist clubs with his wife, where do you hide your concealed weapon during 
your visits to the nudist clubs and are you afraid of accidental misfires?

Cheers!
John Harrell



--- Joe Huffman <JoeH@turbonet.com> wrote:
> For some, "slut" is not a derogatory term:
> 
> "The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities"
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890159018/qid=1033228564/sr=8
> -1/ref=sr_8_1/103-3004909-6094260?v=glance&n=507846
> 
> However, I can't imagine Mr. Harrell was thinking of a slut in a favorable
> fashion.  I also can't find a definition that would include a top free women
> (without further qualifications).
> 
> My wife and I have been to several nudist clubs and have never seen any
> behaviors that would qualify for slutiness as per the dictionary definition.
> My guess is that Mr. Harrell has a problem with rectal-cranium inversion.
> 
> -joe-
> ----
> http://www.joehuffman.org
> http://www.modernballistics.com
> http://www.boomershoot.org
> mailto:email@joehuffman.org
> mailto:phone@joehuffman.org (Cell phone text message 110 chars max)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Saundra Lund [mailto:sslund@moscow.com]
> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 6:35 AM
> To: 'John Harrell'; 'Ted Moffett'; sunilramalingam@hotmail.com;
> ddouglas@pacsim.com
> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: RE: Compassion
> 
> 
> Mr. Harrell's post (below) is extremely offensive for many reasons.
> I've firmly sat on my fingers with the recent name calling, but this is
> just too much.  Perhaps there's good reason Mr. Harrell's posts continue
> to be intercepted by my spam filtering service.
> 
> How *dare* you label women who choose to go naturally topfree as
> "sluts"?!  Who are you to sit in judgment?  Given your extremely narrow
> point of view, I seriously doubt you know any woman who might choose to
> go naturally topfree well enough to know anything of her sexual
> behavior.  Yet, you sure are awfully quick to apply a horribly offensive
> label to such women.  Shame on you!
> 
> Contrary to your warped views, there are many, many women in this
> community, in this county, in this state, in this country, and in this
> world for whom going topfree has absolutely nothing to do with sex or
> sexuality or "fornication".
> 
> I'm sorry for you, and for our community, that you are so hung up on
> sitting in judgment and juvenile name calling that you are unable to
> understand such a basic concept.  It's not rocket science:  excluding
> lewd behavior, whether or not breasts are viewed as sexual depends on
> the eye of the beholder, *not* on the breasts.  I'm sorry to say I guess
> we know where you fit in the equation.  That's your personal problem --
> don't try to blame women for that!
> 
> You seem to see topfree women as a "threat" to our children.  I
> *strongly* disagree.  My daughter has been raised with a *healthy*
> attitude towards breasts and would not understand your faulty
> stereotyping, nor the hatred obvious in your post.
> 
> The children in this community face some very real threats, but those
> threats do NOT include breasts.  Rather, it's your attitude and
> perverted views that are dangerous to our children.  Those are (some of)
> the threats.  I'm much more concerned about my daughter coming across a
> person with your views than I am with her seeing breasts downtown!
> 
> Your misogynistic opinions would be *much* more frightening and harmful
> to her than seeing bare breasts.
> 
> Too bad we can't pass a law against that . . .
> 
> 
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, Idaho
> 
> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to
> do nothing.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Harrell [mailto:johnbharrell@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 27, 2002 5:18 PM
> To: Ted Moffett; sunilramalingam@hotmail.com; ddouglas@pacsim.com
> Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
> Subject: RE: Compassion
> 
> <snip>
> How about being inclusive and label
> women and men that are fornicators as sluts. In my original post, I used
> the
> term in the context of the issues that have been placed before us
> regarding the
> slutty behavior of women exposing themselves downtown in public <snip>
> 
> Nevertheless, I still desire that the rights of innocent children and
> not those of dirty women would prevail in Moscow. The rights of a child
> to walk downtown to buy candy at a store should not require a child to
> have to endure a hostile
> sexual environment in public downtown Moscow <snip>
> 
> John Harrell
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.yahoo.com