Response from Rob Ryley

The following is an excerpt of postings to CD by Rob Ryley, who was also banned from the CD list:

What exactly did we say that Jeff wants answered? It is obvious what he expects from Robin. It is far from clear what he expects from either me or Stanton. I would like a clear explanation of what we are "charged" with, and what we must say that will satisfy Jeff.

What gives Jeff the right to determine what is accurate and inaccurate? Isn't that something the reader or a third party should decide? Where is there room for disagreement in his philosophy?

Amos applies all of his invective/accurate characterizations (whichever you prefer) to anyone who disagrees with him. He is particularly fond of "murder of human values" (I always wondered, how can you murder a value? He must be literalizing a metaphor again, to borrow a phrase from Jeff).

My response to Gunsberg "logic" should appear in the logs. Suffice it to say, I don't believe inconsistency necessarily means someone is lying. I would rather people reserve their moral judgment, or at least keep it to themselves, until it is absolutely clear something is amiss.

Jeff/Amos kept repeating that Robin was a *insert invective here* over and over, without stating just what they wanted him to clear up. I am not particularly fond of Room's political philosophy, but calling him a liar does nothing but inflame emotions. I expected better behavior from people who preach a philosophy of human dignity and personal freedom.

The difference between being banned outright and "given the opportunity to correct and/or apologize" for statements is splitting hairs. No explanation by Robin, Stanton, or myself (except for recanting everything and pleading for mercy) would do a damn thing to change your mind. Why then, is Stanton claiming he is "banned" considered libel? After all, he should know how he is going to handle the situation.

While the listowner has the legal right to ban anyone he/she desires from the list, is it ethically acceptable to ban someone just because they disagree with you? For the most part, I agree with Jeff's position on psychology and psychiatry. I just disagree with how he portrays people on the list. Should this be enough to kick someone off his list?

[In response to Davi Trippel:]

I sincerely do not know why you lump Robin with Stanton and me. If you go back and actually READ the posts, I was a severe critic of Robin and his position (ie. alcohol abuse is a social construction, yet using alcohol causes violence and those who drink and commit crime should receive reduced punishment). It seems my biggest flaw was not calling Robin a "murder of human values", "a mugger", or a "liar." I still do not think these are accurate descriptors of Robin, Stanton, or myself.

What you call "meaningless drivel" only shows your ignorance of the crucual area of contention. I fully agree that Robin needs to answer the issues brought up by Amos. I already said that in a post (you people obviously ignored that). What I oppose, and still do, is the use of blatant and outrageous name-calling. Calling people a "murder", "liar", etc. does nothing to prove your point. All it does is draw attention away from more important things.

I guess my desire to examine the political issues of alcohol and crime in a more rational than emotional way conflicted with the desire of Amos and Jeff to sling mud and use some insults that they probably stayed up nights thinking of. Well, I have more important things to do than to argue with some narrow-minded, intolerant, ivory-tower, arm-chair academics who could not dispense with ad hominem for just a little while. I joyously await the day when I find out I am kicked off CD. I apologize for and regret nothing that I have posted. I should have only remembered that people like a fight more than anything else.

Robert Ryley