My former 'boss' and good friend who heads the main Dutch libertarian organization got an e-mail from an FDR'er last Sunday who had seen my name on the list of authors of our organization's website (www.meervrijheid.nl). in his e-mail he linked to Stef's article about me and expressed his concern that somebody who is as aggressive as I am (based on Stef's article) is not a good example of a libertarian and that my name being there conflicts with the very positive atmosphere of the articles we publish.

Little did he know that I was actually the de facto editor of the website and was thus responsible for the majority of those positive articles he liked so much.

my friend replied to the guy saying he has known me for 6 years and has never noticed any aggression in me, that (most of) the quotes are taken out of context and that he thinks it would only be fair for him (the FDR'er) to contact me to talk about it directly and that I was willing to make time for that as well.

I predicted to my friend that the FDR'er will not contact me and possibly not even respond to my friend's e-mail, because he is afraid to have an open conversation with me and because Stef tells people 'don't engage' so that they don't hear conflicting views.

Anyway, the FDR'er indeed did not respond to my friend's e-mail, so I sent him an e-mail as well (friendly and open) yesterday and of course he didnt respond to that either.

They're courageous people is what they are.

I think FDR is in the phase that the leader asks people (or they have internalized the implicit message) to do things that are quite immoral (not against libertarian principles to be sure) and at least some of them are obeying him.

What would the FDR'er think if I wrote an article about him titled '[FULL NAME] is a member of a controversial cult' and then take all sorts of nasty quotes from Stefan and other FDR'ers (hey, I wouldnt even have to take them out of context) and put them in the article and then send it to his employers or clients and publish it online?

To be sure, I would not do that, but I don't think the FDR'er in question would think that is a very moral thing to do and he would not like it.

Still, he happily cooperates with Stef who did exactly that (except that this guy's real name is a bit harder to find online and connect with his FDR avatar than mine was in connection with LM) I think they don't really understand what they're doing anymore

What an aggressive thing to say! You should be BANNED!

- NonE

I would start legal action against the FDRer

I don't think I would do that for moral reasons. But suppose I didnt have such moral reasons, I don't think there would be any practical chances of success. What would my case be, you think?

Defamation?

I strongly doubt I would have a legal case that way

No, as the "honestly held opinion" defense would probably be applicable. But that would be the charge.

He can plead insanity

Not going to hint at who it was? Hmm. Well, was it a member high in The Community?

Ohh, you would have success for sure... Governments around the world is just waiting intensely for their chances to get more control over the internet.

While I doubt the Molyneuvian would could it immoral they would definitely come down on someone doing such a thing as not being virtuous and corrupt.

Stef said :"Kill your children if they are disobedient"

Clearly he's not a positive person, just based on that. Just forget the discussion surrounding those words.

Universally what?

The reason Stef is always context dropping is that UPB is a context free philosophy.

Nitpicking is a dirty job, but someone has to do it!