More lack of discernment in the Keene movement

[Tom Sawyer]

Misdirection is the first thing I learned at magic school. 

[John]

K neth

[FTL_Ian]

I believe he apologized for threatening you with court.

So he didn't apologize for lying, the subject that this thread is all about, and the thing that you said was in his past while personally factually knowing that he did recently. Gotcha.

JP appears to be a pathological liar, by all evidence.  I don't think he can help it.

[FTL_Ian]

My Response To The Brad Spangler Situation
Kelsey Eichhorn-Fetterhoff
http://youtu.be/UbyZH-H79GE?t=3m53s

FTL called out on putting clicks ahead of, well, a fifteen year old girl.

Tom, this person didn't even hear the conversation to which she is referring.  Her name wasn't even mentioned and it didn't even happen on a show that I was hosting.  (So I knew nothing about it, but got targeted for it.)  Don't believe everything you hear about us, especially when you could just ask one of us about it rather than dragging FTL through the mud.  She said she was going to provide evidence to Mark and she never did.

Ian, I have to have doubts about what you say because of past duplicity with examples as shown in this thread."the employment of cunning and duplicity in statecraft or in general conduct"

And to play the Ian card "I" didn't drag FTL through the mud, she did. By the way I found her video separately from your enemies over at Stop Free Keene. Viewing info about the kiddie diddler Brad Spangler.

As has been pointed out by many others, including Mark, your public position on age of consent has contributed to these PR problems. It is often perceived as cover for pedophiles, by both the public at large and the actual pedophiles. Academic arguments are trumped by real world results. Nothing is a bigger family repellant than kiddie diddling.

The problem, as I see it, is you are free to put whatever kind of content up on your show that you like. At the same time people are free to be unhappy with it, and withdraw support. You are free to have whoever you want cohost your show. But, don't be surprised if the shit splashes on to everyone if they turn out to be a turd.

So how about a link to the content in question? That should clear things right up.

Talk to Mark Edge - he'll tell you the same thing about the young lady's video accusations.  I wasn't even on the show in question, Tom, but yes, I think the age of consent is bullshit, and I am really not concerned about the bad PR that comes with that.

Where have I been duplicitous in any of our interactions, Tom?  I've always appreciated knowing you and your activism.  I've happily hired you to do work, paid on schedule, and was more than satisfied with the performance.

You may not like all my opinions and my tolerance for peoples' faults, but I'm not two-faced. 

[Mark_FTL]

This thread is really getting out of hand.

The show was July 31, 2011. Go to the 1:33:50 mark to begin listening. Stephanie brings up the topic and by mentioning a post on Facebook by a friend. She never mentions Brad's name, nor Kelsey. It was a Sunday Show, and Ian was not on it. The best I can tell, Kelsey never listened to the program and has held a grudge for 4 years based on hearing that we had talked about her. I asked her to type out an email and plainly state her grievance. She said I was awesome. I have not yet received that email; it has been more than a week.

I would ask people here to do the same. Plainly state what your grievance is against Ian and tell him what you want him to do about it. This "compiling evidence that Ian is a bad guy" is ridiculous.

https://www.freetalklive.com/content/podcast_2011_07_31

[Jim Johnson]

She said I was awesome.

[Tom Sawyer]

I believe he apologized for threatening you with court.

So he didn't apologize for lying, the subject that this thread is all about, and the thing that you said was in his past while personally factually knowing that he did recently. Gotcha.

JP appears to be a pathological liar, by all evidence.  I don't think he can help it.

See, if you had started off this way the rest of this wouldn't have followed.

The other thing is you could have not promoted him to others. I have little faith in what you say, first I thought it was poor judgement, then I thought it was blind promotion... who the heck has time to figure out why someone is BS you around. The first whiff I get I'm done. I had back off of giving you grief, because I saw that criticism was not accepted, and I do see the positives of your efforts to include financing events etc. I read your blog, and mostly benefit from an information source. But, the obvious bias puts it in the category of FOX news. After a little while the viewer gets tired of being treated like a rube and feeling they are being manipulated...

From the start I have recognized your ambitions. It's the fact that you will purposely obfuscate in the pursuit.

[Tom Sawyer]

This thread is really getting out of hand.

The show was July 31, 2011. Go to the 1:33:50 mark to begin listening. Stephanie brings up the topic and by mentioning a post on Facebook by a friend. She never mentions Brad's name, nor Kelsey. It was a Sunday Show, and Ian was not on it. The best I can tell, Kelsey never listened to the program and has held a grudge for 4 years based on hearing that we had talked about her. I asked her to type out an email and plainly state her grievance. She said I was awesome. I have not yet received that email; it has been more than a week.

I would ask people here to do the same. Plainly state what your grievance is against Ian and tell him what you want him to do about it. This "compiling evidence that Ian is a bad guy" is ridiculous.

https://www.freetalklive.com/content/podcast_2011_07_31

Thanks Mark, sorry to splash shit inadvertently on you. I know you try to rein Ian in, but dang he sure likes to pretend things are different than they are.

I have to politely disagree with you about warning people of Ian's tactics. Someone's credibility is very important. I stopped talking about it, others now approach me and have come to similar conclusions. The real test is if our opposition had the behavior would we criticize it?

As to the thread getting out of hand...
I have done this here, I didn't come into ya'lls space and try to stir up shit. This is the venue for dissent, as it was in it's origin.

And apparently trolling is the new technique to drive traffic, per ya'lls cohost. Don't think that his abrasive shit isn't splashing on to you. Even if Ian posts a blog saying he doesn't support him, then does many things that in fact support him.

Like I said before ya'll can run your show as you see fit, and we can find fault in it. To use Ian's own words, "The market has spoken!" 

[Tom Sawyer]

Thank you Mark. You are absolutely correct about the show in question.

I would give you karma, but then you wouldn't have 69 anymore.

[Tom Sawyer]

As to the age of consent and not caring about the PR factor that speaks back to the title of the thread.

I have both read about and personally seen examples of actual problems caused with in this community. Why don't we promote necrophilia, or as I remember cannibalism? Maybe the cannibals and necrophiliacs can hang out at the KAC with the kiddie cuddlers and cop killers! 

Personally it even had an effect recently on my own decisions. A young relative that was interested in the idea of going to Porcfest with us. I couldn't honestly tell her parents that I felt entirely confident that she would be safe to roam about. I can take that risk with my child. I'm not worried about William, he would raise holy hell to be followed by his big, angry dad and if necessary we could unleash his mom (sweet mother of god, I pity the fool  ).

It was a follower of your cohost that was acting in an unsafe and menacing manner while armed at Porcfest. That's the kind of forces that can be potentially unleashed with rhetoric. The downside is so great, and to people that consider the effect of their actions in the real world, it's irresponsible to risk everyone else's safety and efforts. One bad incident, one Brad Spangler... one gun nut that has an accidental discharge or worse purposely shots someone...

[Tom Sawyer]

I've happily hired you to do work, paid on schedule, and was more than satisfied with the performance.

The money earned was helpful to my family and I appreciated it. I said that to you at the time.

I was working for Jim Johnson, I have complete faith in Jim's integrity. I also told Jim that I had no doubt of you living up to payment etc.

Those business dealings are seperate from my activism. We did a good job and you payed well for the service.

[MaineShark]

I have both read about and personally seen examples of actual problems caused with in this community. Why don't we promote necrophilia, or as I remember cannibalism?

Because few, if any, are harmed by the laws prohibiting such things, whereas many human beings have their lives destroyed each year due to the ridiculous AoC laws that label something felony rape with lifetime registration as a sex offender if it happens one day, but a perfectly-acceptable relationship between two loving adults it if happens the very next day.

And, on the flip side, because actual predators can claim that it wasn't "really rape" even when it actually was.  If there is a lack of consent, for any reason (active refusal, unconsciousness, inebriation, lack of maturity), then it's rape.  Period.  End of sentence.  Not "statutory rape."  Just rape.

Eliminating AoC and simply making maturity an element of the crime would make it clear that rape is always rape, would not impede any legitimate prosecutions of predators (no jury is going to believe that a 10-year-old was able to consent, but on the same note, no jury will believe that someone who could consent on his sixteenth birthday could not consent the day before), and would eliminate life-destroying miscarriages of justice.

Current AoC laws cause a great deal of harm, themselves, and then turn around and excuse behavior that is actually harmful as something less.  Rapists are rapists, and should all be treated as they deserve.

[Tom Sawyer]

I agree that laws are often a problem.

My position is not violating the NAP is the minimum requirement to keep from killing each other. It is not enough to build a cohesive community.

I think this is a fundamental problem that I think eludes many libertarians. Especially the ones that cherry pick the principles to suit their own agendas.

By the way I like your take/explanation... it shows discernment.  The shades of gray are where we all live, perhaps moving towards the lighter shades as we get it right.

I also know that I have never seen you acting angry while armed. It's ugly, and the real gun guys never do it.

[MaineShark]

My position is not violating the NAP is the minimum requirement to keep from killing each other. It is not enough to build a cohesive community.

I think this is a fundamental problem that I think eludes many libertarians. Especially the ones that cherry pick the principles to suit their own agendas.

Correct.  As I would state it, the NAP defines morality (right versus wrong), but not ethics (better versus worse).  If a cashier hands me too much change, I can freely walk out of the store with that extra, and have done nothing wrong, because it was the cashier's mistake, not any choice of mine which caused the cashier to freely hand me extra money.

But it would be a very unethical thing to do, and is detrimental to the community.  Just because you can do something, does not mean you should do that thing.

Laws which set strict rules with no shades of grey have a similar impact.  By taking judgment away from the individual, they teach that discernment should not exist.  Which is not to say that some things are not so eggregious that they cannot be defined as strictly wrong, but that such should be reserved for those sort of things, not cases where individual judgment is absolutely necessary.

By the way I like your take/explanation... it shows discernment.  The shades of gray are where we all live, perhaps moving towards the lighter shades as we get it right.

Thanks.  I always say that the point of a principled stand is to have a goal in mind.  Imperfect humans will always run some risk of making mistakes, even with the best of intentions.  Principles are there to guide us away from such mistakes, but we have to accept that, as imperfect beings, mistakes will sometimes be made.  How we respond after we make a mistake is probably a more important reflection of our character than whether we made the mistake to begin with.

I also know that I have never seen you acting angry while armed. It's ugly, and the real gun guys never do it.

I doubt you'll ever see me angry, regardless of armament.  I don't choose to live my life that way.  But I'm even more careful to not only avoid anger, but to avoid even the appearance of anger, when I am publicly armed, as I know that others will observe my behavior and potentially form positive or negative opinions about ownership and carry of weapons as a result of that behavior.

[Tom Sawyer]

Wow, go stuff.