Under Honest Colors
Firstly, let me say that I have never, ever, hidden my opinions of US foreign policy from anybody, particularly associates in the US Libertarian movement. I have frequently let them be known to a number of libertarians, around the country, and in my own state party. They still supported me, even drafted me, to become Vice-Chairman of my state party for the 2nd Congressional District.
This being said, if asked tomorrow to step down, I would be fine with that, as this is a thankless task. Few libertarians appreciate what you do. Most could care less considering they themselves don't lift a finger for the cause, even when they think their party membership dues is all anyone should expect from them, and some are positive they could do a better job but are never willing to step up and take the job. Many party non-members are absolutely sure they know what is wrong with the movement but then play on a shuck and jive about how they don't believe in voting or demonstrations because that is somehow 'an initiation of force'.
Now, today, the following article by L Neil Smith was brought to my attention:
"Under False Colors"
http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2005/tle307-20050220-02.html
in which he accuses me of crypto-republicanism and occuping my position under false pretenses, among other lies.
Neil comes to this sudden realization (after having published one of my essays and a number of my LTEs over the years, though he now professes not to know me) after a mutual friend of ours forwarded him some of my posts to a yahoogroups email list I run called "extro-freedom". In these posts I detailed a number of the problems I saw with US LP foreign policy positions, and presented my own analysis of the proper interpretation of the ZAP with respect to foreign policy, as well as my opinions of libertarians who, as I see it, put boundaries and qualifiers on application of the ZAP, Neil being one of the prime guilty parties. Neil went on to misrepresent what I said, twist words, take statements out of context, make accusations, and lie in a manner that IMHO puts him in strong contention against Dan Rather for Yellow Journalist of the Year.
I once had a great amount of respect for L Neil Smith. Now I find him to be a snide yellow-baiter who is terribly scared that his head-in-the-sand "screw you, I've got mine" brand of libertarianism is going to be exposed for what it is.
This being said, if asked tomorrow to step down, I would be fine with that, as this is a thankless task. Few libertarians appreciate what you do. Most could care less considering they themselves don't lift a finger for the cause, even when they think their party membership dues is all anyone should expect from them, and some are positive they could do a better job but are never willing to step up and take the job. Many party non-members are absolutely sure they know what is wrong with the movement but then play on a shuck and jive about how they don't believe in voting or demonstrations because that is somehow 'an initiation of force'.
Now, today, the following article by L Neil Smith was brought to my attention:
"Under False Colors"
http://www.ncc-1776.com/tle2005/tle307-20050220-02.html
in which he accuses me of crypto-republicanism and occuping my position under false pretenses, among other lies.
Neil comes to this sudden realization (after having published one of my essays and a number of my LTEs over the years, though he now professes not to know me) after a mutual friend of ours forwarded him some of my posts to a yahoogroups email list I run called "extro-freedom". In these posts I detailed a number of the problems I saw with US LP foreign policy positions, and presented my own analysis of the proper interpretation of the ZAP with respect to foreign policy, as well as my opinions of libertarians who, as I see it, put boundaries and qualifiers on application of the ZAP, Neil being one of the prime guilty parties. Neil went on to misrepresent what I said, twist words, take statements out of context, make accusations, and lie in a manner that IMHO puts him in strong contention against Dan Rather for Yellow Journalist of the Year.
I once had a great amount of respect for L Neil Smith. Now I find him to be a snide yellow-baiter who is terribly scared that his head-in-the-sand "screw you, I've got mine" brand of libertarianism is going to be exposed for what it is.
posted by Mike Lorrey at 11:24 AM
20 Comments:
Cite your data as to how Neil has "misrepresented" your ravings, and maybe then we'll talk. IMO he did an excellent job of both quoting your drivel and responding on point to each item in turn.
I am referred to in this post as a "mutual friend" of Mike and Neil. This should be corrected to reflect the fact that I'm a friend of Neil, and an acquaintance of Mike: my status wrt the latter changed a long time ago, due to the "Smart Guns" debacle. This latest only confirms that.
Having seen your posts in Free State Project and LP New Hampshire forums, I have no qualms in pointing out that the only lies going on are on your part.
Neil was absolutely and stringently truthful in everything he said about you and your claims.
To tell the truth, if I had known you are the quality of officer the LP considers acceptable, I would have chosen to move to any state other than New Hampshire when it came time to vote on the FSP balloting.
I would like to see a thorough, point-by-point breakdown of Neil's supposed misrepresentations, myself. Pointing to Neil's article and then simply calling him a liar just does not "work" for me.
More likely than not, I am probably not familiar to you. I am a fairly new member of the LP, after all. I am acquainted with Neil, however -- and more importantly, I respect him. I've always found him to be fair, logical, and honest. You've given me no proof, nor reason, to believe otherwise -- nor to believe you.
Clearly he is a liar to say that I somehow 'snuck' into my position. As I stated, I have always made my opinions of US foreign policy clear in the libertarian community. Thus his comment is a very dirty attack.
More likely, Neil was attempting to offer the NH LP an out.
After all, if they elected you into a party office, knowing your proclivities, it means that the NH LP is bereft of libertarian principle.
I have read Smith's works, both fiction and non-fiction, for many years. I have found him to be utterly consistant. Take one of his essays written 15 years ago, and you will find no variation in principle. None.
You will also find that when Smith has been shown to be wrong on a fact, he admits the misinformation, addresses the new data, stands forward and accepts any repercussion.
As Mr. MacManus wrote earlier, I too was disgusted to find out that Mr. Lorrey was not only already in New Hampshire, and had somehow teased his way into a position of trust. Lorrey is the only FSP member I have yet found who is not a decent, principled individual capable of civil discourse.
And no, I don't "know" him either. We have never met face to face, nor had more personal interaction than his colourful invective and my delete button.
I have slowly and deliberately re-read EVERY SINGLE WORD that Neil wrote in that particular article. The word "snuck" does not appear at all, in any context, and nothing he wrote can be interpreted to mean that you "snuck" into anything whatsoever. He obviously laments the fact that you were placed in such a position, but he did NOT intimate that you "snuck" in to an officer's role. For you to state that he accused you of "sneaking" anywhere -- well, that makes YOU a liar. Again ...
I also did not see any kind of statement from Neil where he disputes the clarity you claim to have made public knowledge -- HOWEVER long you've called yourself a libertarian, or have been a member of the LP, OR were made an officer in New Hampshire's LP. Neil didn't even come close to disputing that statement. At all.
Did you score well in reading-comprehension aptitude tests when you were in school? From what I've read today, you don't seem to have a very good grasp of *anything* that Neil has written. (Not only regarding the article he wrote about your misrepresenting his words and ideas, but regarding just about *everything* he has written.)
Well, Sharon, Neil did say "I suggest that it's time to remove him from the office he holds under false colors". Accusing someone of holding office under false colors implies they obtained office by some sort of subterfuge, i.e. 'snuck in'. So now I get to ask where YOUR reading comprehension is.
He also claims I am not a Libertarian quite clearly when he says, "If it's a movement that includes "Mike" it certainly isn't the libertarian movement." He then goes on to call me a crypto-republican (his word). Who is it that now has the reading comprehension problem, Sharon?
My reading comprehension ranks at the graduate level, thanks, and in high school I scored a 640 on the verbal part of my SATs. I have written a half dozen software manuals.
As for the rest of you, the LPNH isn't short of principle, it is short of people who will get of their behinds and get things done rather than just carping from the peanut galleries. If you think I don't belong in my position then get your butt to NH and replace me. Until then, mind your own business in your own state (or bunker, as the case may be).
The "false colors" would the claim that you are a libertarian, when your own statements make it clear that you are not.
As for "minding my own business"....
When a force-initiator claims to be a libertarian, that IS my business. He has committed fraud against anyone who wants to understand what a libertarian is, and has defamed those who truly are libertarians.
Last Summer, Mike Lorrey was proudly telling people he was a registered Republican. I am sooo pleased to see other people besides myself can see that Lorrey lies a lot! He likes to brag on his test scores. I don't think he graduated college, so I think that may be why he is bragging on his test scores. Thank you Fred for pointing out that the term "false colors" refers to Lorrey claiming he is a Libertarian when it is obvious to many that he is not a Libertarian.
Ah, the old "Anonymous" strikes again, too cowardly to have enough scrotal fortitude to identify himself.
Ah, the old "Anonymous" strikes again, too cowardly to have enough scrotal fortitude to identify himself.
"Anonymous" must be either, Chuck Geshlider or his sidekick, or John Richard... saboteurs all.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
At the time, I was a registered republican, as are many other libertarians who are discriminated against and disenfranchised by NH election laws. Saying I was a registered republican was therefore not a lie. Therefore, once more, I tell you that you need to drop the accusation or face litigation. Your post here only exacerbates your tort.
thought-provoking, mootable pv. just my thoughts, well anyways gl & be chipper is what i say
Do You Want To Change Your Life... Do you need help in the following areas: Faith , Faith, Faith, Faith , Faith , Faith , and Faith ... Then quit procrastinating and Become the person you want to be.. I am Glad that you let me post on your site.. My goal in life is to teach people how to succeed in life with simple goal setting and motivation techniques....
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home