[Rhodes22-list] Legal: Ben Please Help
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Wed Oct 22 21:09:51 EDT 2008
I think you're letting your anger get the better of you.
Let's do a hypothetical. Clinton screwed around on his wife, and
attempted to parse the word "is". It was an idiotic move. But, let's
pretend you and I are discussing it, and I say to you:
=====
Ben,
If you have sex with the woman next door, and you tell your wife "I did
not sleep with that woman", when in fact you were thinking "Nope, I was
awake the whole time".
Would that not make you a liar, even though you were speaking the
literal truth, you were lying
=====
Now Ben, that is what NOT me saying you are had sex with the woman next
door, or that you misled your wife, or that you're a liar. That is me
putting the YOU in the story as a hypothetical, and leading it with the
all important word "IF".
You may or may not feel that Ed was doing that with you when he said
"What are the elements of Conspiracy?......*IF* you do not say anything
are you a co-conspirator?" (my emphasis). He didn't say you were not
saying anything, he was offering a hypothetical. In addition, he was
talking about the conspiracy to cover up Obama's past (if memory serves
me right). That's not a crime.
On the Ben Ayers thing, you probably won't like this, but he did the
same thing. He posed a hypothetical
"Ben discounted the Bill Ayres thing. Even *IF* he is a Marxist as is
Bill Ayres, he as an American has an obligation to speak the truth. In
America a Marxist is obligated to tell the truth and not lie about it .
So it goes with his candidate Obama"
He said IF you are a marxist, you have an obligation to be honest about
it (I don't agree with him, I think you're under no obligation to tell
the truth about yourself). He then went on to apply that standard to
your candidate Obama (I DO agree with him on that one, a presidential
candidate has an obligation to be honest about himself).
Sorry Ben, in both instances ed CLEARLY stated "if". In both of them, he
said if a certain condition were met, you should act in a certain way.
In neither of them did he say that condition was met.
.
You may or may not agree with that, but it's right there in the original
post, and in your quotation of it. Sorry I didn't do what you wanted,
but I'll probably miss that mark many times in the future, but I really
am pretty consistent in what I do, and what I believe.
And even if you don't agree with his intent, I STRONGLY disagree with
your statement
"There is no way that statement can be read by anyone to say anything
other than that Ed says I am a Marxist. "
Clearly, if you read closely, and without anger, there IS a reasonable
"way" that statement can be read different than your interpretation.
But, let's assume for a moment that Ed was doing exactly what you say he
was doing. It's talk. No threat of action. That just puts him right
there with the idiots that spout off about "religious kooks" and
"thinkers and debaters vs just believers". And yes, I find those terms
offensive. And no, I don't look for anyone to "stand up" for me when
they're spoken (though I do bristle some when some of you, yourself
included, object to me standing up to it myself).
On the other hand, had Ed said "Ben, you keep talking like that, you'd
probably be better off sailing in a different area than me, because I've
been known to keep a poor watch and run into things a time or two" I
would have said he's an asshole. Without hesitation.
Nothing on here is worthy of a threat of action, or at least nothing
I've seen, and I've seen a lot worse than being called a marxist. And,
as has already been pointed out, I'm not the only one that saw your
words as a threat.
Benjamin Cittadino wrote:
> Mike;
>
> I see it now. OK, you get a gold star too. Actually you get two since you
> were first.
> I will probably not make the same mistake again thanks to you, Rob and Herb.
> I can "almost" feel the love.
>
> Herb
>
> I used the word collegial as a derivative of the word colleague, as in "one
> who shares the same work or activity or interest or profession". I use it
> to refer to all the members of this forum who share an interest in sailing,
> politics and other things we discuss here in our "sailor's bar".
>
> Since you have chosen to keep talking about my alleged "threat" I'm going to
> take the time to respond. Ed and I seem to have moved on and have had a
> civil discussion on another thread.
> You apparently want to keep it up so I'll deal with you on it.
>
> Ed began a thread on Oct 21 at 3:34am titled "...failure of leadership or
> leading..." in which he said, "Ben discounted the Bill Ayres thing. Even if
> he is a Marxist as is Bill Ayres, he as an American has an obligation to
> speak the truth. In America a Marxist is obligated to tell the truth and not
> lie about it . So it goes with his candidate Obama." There is no way that
> statement can be read by anyone to say anything other than that Ed says I am
> a Marxist. And that is a damnedable lie. I don't use a pseudonym on this
> list so anyone who googles me by my name may find Ed's post and say, hey I'm
> not going to retain that marxist lawyer. If that happened Ed would have
> injured my personal and professional reputation by putting his charge out
> over the internet for millions of people to see. And what did you do Herb?
> Did you spring to my defense and say "I don't agree with Ben but Ed you
> should not spread such malicious falsehoods about Ben". Hell no. You jump
> on me for pointing out to Ed that there are very real potential consequences
> to his reckless speech. I wanted Ed to think about his life savings, not
> because I would sue him, I would not, but because he needs to think alittle
> bit before he spreads malicious lies about people.
>
> But it didn't end there. Ed went on to say "What are the elements of
> Conspiracy?......If you do not say anything are you a co-conspirator? Herb,
> he was clearly referring to the CRIME of Conspiracy. And what did you do
> Herb? Did you do the fair and honorable thing and say. "Hey Ed, list members
> should not accuse other list members of criminal conspiracy?" Hell no, to
> you it was just ed's "musings".
>
> And afew days ago when he "wondered" whether my father and/or grandfather
> were people who helped the fascist dictator Mussolini into power (an obvious
> ethnic slur directed at my Italian heritage) where were you? I sure don't
> know but it's clear you did not have my back.
>
> Frankly, I expected a lot more support from other list members, not
> agreement on politics, but some recognition that my admonition to Ed was
> appropriate, and that his conduct was unacceptable. A word or two from you
> or Jb to Ed to cut it out would have helped.
>
> So I'm the asshole, my friend? And what are you Herb? I guess you're just a
> stand up guy.
>
> Perhaps I'm just not cut out for this internet banter. This list is my only
> experience with long distance debate. I like it better when the other guy
> is looking in my face when he calls me vile and despicable names. The
> educational and entertainment value of further participation does seem to be
> waning a bit. See you around the campus.
>
> Ben C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hparsons wrote:
>
>> Gee, I just apologized and turns out I had the RIGHT Ben all along.
>>
>> No Ben, the asshole post was a different one. I called you that because
>> of what appeared to be a threat. You explained, and I answered back that
>> I didn't know the meaning of the word.
>>
>> You may FEEL your misspelling was "obvious", but it wasn't to me. My
>> email program recognizes neither (I'll be more than happy to show you a
>> screenshot that shows both of them with red underlines), and just as I
>> said, the reference I found in the small dictionary in my office didn't
>> fit the context. I STILL don't understand it, he's not a law colleague,
>> and it didn't have to do with college. I made it clear that I was
>> ignorant on the topic, and frankly, I'm not much more informed even now.
>>
>> I did catch the difference between dual and duel, and even thought it a
>> funny Freudian slip. Didn't mention it though, because I thought I'd get
>> another stinging response about my spelling.
>>
>> I've never spoken of you as a mortal enemy. The threat was beneath what
>> a reasonable person would be doing on an internet site. You disagreed,
>> and acted as if I were somehow in the wrong about it being a threat. I
>> wasn't alone in my perception. I still believe it was beneath what
>> should occur here, and felt (and still do) that it deserved an equally
>> "beneath" response.
>>
>> In the "mortal enemies" issue, I have the ability to compartmentalize,
>> and apparently you either don't, or choose not to use it. I can think
>> you're being an asshole when you make boorish threats, and still think
>> your advice on other areas is good. Shoot, if that weren't the case, no
>> way could I vote for McCain, or most other politicians for that matter.
>>
>> Jesus says that we are to love everyone, I do. I can love a person and
>> still not like what they do, or what they say, and still be forthright
>> with them when I feel like it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>
>>> Herb;
>>>
>>> Please don't do this.
>>>
>>> The difference between "duel" and "dual" is subtle, and the substitution
>>> of
>>> one for the other was funny. Rob was clearly joking.
>>>
>>> My spelling error of "colleagial" instead of "collegial" was an obvious
>>> typo and you had just gotten finished calling me an "asshole" as I
>>> recall.
>>>
>>> I don't think you can have it both ways. If we are buddies just
>>> bantering
>>> online then please forgive my oversight and accept my compliment on your
>>> "catch" of my typo.
>>>
>>> If we are mortal enemies (which is how you speak to me most of the time)
>>> then I don't think the kind of friendly banter I have with Rob is
>>> appropriate between us.
>>>
>>> The choice is yours. Jesus wants me to love you Herb and I am giving it
>>> my
>>> best shot. You tell me what our status is and I'll be happy to act
>>> accordingly.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ben C.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Wait a minute Ben, when I caught one, you didn't say "good catch", and
>>>> mine wasn't even a "you misspelled it", it was a legitimate question as
>>>> to the meaning. I even stated that.
>>>>
>>>> Oh wait. Never mind. I see your response was to Robert. He's one of your
>>>> side, thus a correction in spelling is a "good catch", instead of
>>>> pointing out misspellings.
>>>>
>>>> I'll eventually catch on to both sets of rules.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Robert,
>>>>>
>>>>> You got me man.....I have no excuse....In fact I had to read your post
>>>>> twice
>>>>> before I got it. "Good catch" as the big firm lawyers say when they
>>>>> catch a
>>>>> gramatical or spelling error in a big document.
>>>>>
>>>>> Berst, Ben C.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Skinner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... duel citizenship...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that sort of like two personalities
>>>>>> fighting to the death for possession of
>>>>>> the same body, as opposed to sharing it
>>>>>> as in the case of dual personalities?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Robert
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list