[PLUG-TALK] Scot Craighead's mailer

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Fri Jun 21 05:29:50 UTC 2002


On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, J Henshaw wrote:
> > > He has made irrational statements as others have-
> > > "the only thing that matters is whether there are more insane people
> > > than people like you; the belief that something is true suffices, and
> > > we the insane outnumber you"
> > > Now why are you not supporting calling a spade a spade?
> >
> > That's not a quote of mine, sir.  I hope that you will print a retraction
> > of this libel.
> 
> No need; it was prefaced with "as others have"

But no other has said that, either.  You made it up.

> Still,  you are not able to respect reality.

I'm not the one making up quotes and attributing them to non-existent
people.

> I am not going to waste my time compiling each offense, I have other
> things more imporatant to do.
> So sorry.

You don't have anything.  You fail time and again to provide any evidence
for your wild allegations.

> > When did I admit that I am "Lucifer's playtoy"?
> 
> I asked once if you were insane, ignorant or a Satanist. Your reply
> was "The third, and maybe the fouth and the fifth".
> 
> The third was clear to me. Maybe it's a case of "the new math" again
> as opposed to the "outmoded" kind.

Right.  Actually, what I wrote was, "I am a third thing...".  That's
clearly not the same as THE third thing.  I didn't intend to identify as
ANY of your choices.

I think that I was thinking of people who look at options as if they are
coins; only two sides possible.  So I stated that I am a third thing,
meaning that I am not on your coin.  I failed to note that you listed
three things.  My mistake.

Let me restate:

I am a fourth thing... and possible a fifth and a sixth.

I am certainly not a Satanist.  I'm trying very hard to come up with a
definition of Satanist that I CAN fit in so that we can just say that I am
and move on, but there aren't any, to my mind.  I am neither a deceiver
nor a bringer of light.  I don't believe there is evidence to support
belief in the supernatural and I don't work against those who do.  I
believe in sharing and helping others and caring for my fellow man.  I
abhor greed and usury and selfishness.  I think you'd be hard-pressed to
find an action of mine that could be deemed Satanic.

Well, alright.  If we use the only definition of "Satanic" that fits all
of your usage, which is "those things with which Jeff Henshaw disagrees".  
If that's your definition, I could probably be called a Satanist.  I'll
cop to it.

> Either way, by your fruits ye shall know them.

How can you know others by your own fruits?

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org







More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list