jordy

Must be something in the water huh?

blownboat

Does anybody knoe what direction his props were spinning?

T2x

in a circular motion.

T2x

PhantomChaos

Even at 45mph buggywhip? Must be a crapy desin. Is thier ever a god desin? I waz thincking that this tread waz almost done butt I guss I waz rong

blownboat

Thanks,that helps ....

Panther

I still say it was the steps.

PhantomChaos

I am writing this letter because I take issue with some of Leland Honeyman's principles. One of the first facts we should face is that Honeyman's ramblings are destructive. They're morally destructive, socially destructive -- even intellectually destructive. And, as if that weren't enough, Honeyman maliciously defames and damagingly misrepresents everyone and everything around him. There's a word for that: libel. We must worry about two sorts of dysfunctional, jaundiced punks: vexatious and delusional. Honeyman is among the former. Am I the only one who makes that observation? Of course not. But perhaps I express it more directly, more candidly, and far less euphemistically than most.

Is it important that Honeyman doesn't want equality, but revenge? Of course it's important. But what's more important is that he appears to have found a new tool to use to help him divert attention from his unprovoked aggression. That tool is emotionalism, and if you watch him wield it, you'll undoubtedly see why his secret passion is to bring ugliness and nastiness into our lives. For shame!

What if we collectively just told Honeyman's functionaries, "Sure, go ahead and present a false image to the world by hiding unpleasant but vitally important realities about his flimflams. Have fun!"? That would be worse than spineless; it would encourage a deadly acceptance of intolerance.

Although the themes in Honeyman's causeries are limited, those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to answer the empty-headed dips who cashier anyone who tries to work together towards a shared vision have no right to complain when he and his henchmen con us into believing that children should belong to the state. Some people are responsible and others are not. Honeyman falls into the category of "not". His maneuvers have a crippling effect on science and technology. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that of all of Honeyman's exaggerations and incorrect comparisons, one in particular stands out: "The best way to make a point is with foaming-at-the-mouth rhetoric and letters filled primarily with exclamation points." I don't know where he came up with this, but his statement is dead wrong. I am shocked and absolutely appalled that Honeyman could voice the types of gross lies and historical misrepresentations that he so often does. I'll stand by that controversial statement and even assume that most readers who bring their own real-life experience will agree with it. At a bare minimum, the law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior.

Honeyman doesn't want us to rally good-hearted people to the side of our cause. He would rather we settle for the meatless bone of careerism. He sometimes uses the word "magnetohydrodynamics" when describing his ballyhoos. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. Stripping from the term "homotransplantation" the negative connotations it evokes, I will try to force Honeyman into early retirement. His views are antiquated, misguided, and dour. But there is a further-reaching implication: This makes me fearful that I might someday find myself in the crosshairs of Honeyman's obscene, self-centered perversions. (To be honest, though, it wouldn't be the first time.) I am deliberately using colorful language in this letter. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how I must protest Honeyman's use of the worst classes of sententious drug lords there are to create catchy, new terms for boring, old issues. I know you're wondering why I just wrote that. I'll explain shortly, but first, I should state that Honeyman spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is Maoism, which says to me that only through education can individuals gain the independent tools they need to address the continued social injustice shown by misguided, crass flibbertigibbets. But the first step is to acknowledge that even when he isn't lying, Honeyman's using facts, emphasizing facts, bearing down on facts, sliding off facts, quietly ignoring facts, and, above all, interpreting facts in a way that will enable him to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys, where they end in frustration and discouragement.

Honeyman does not merely herald the death of intelligent discourse on college campuses. He does so consciously, deliberately, willfully, and methodically. Most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Honeyman play fast and loose with the truth. By refusing to act, by refusing to encourage open, civic engagement, we are giving him the power to stonewall on issues in which taxpayers see a vital public interest. By toning down his adages, many more people are exposed to Honeyman's shameless message, convinced by his passion, and seduced by his simplistic answers to complex social problems.

If Honeyman wants to take control of a nation and suck it dry, let him wear the opprobrium of that decision. In light of my stance on this issue, you may have noticed that there have been reports of rampant drunkenness, performances by strippers, public nudity, and other licentious and debauched behavior at every gathering of his pals. But you don't know the half of it. For starters, there is no doubt that Honeyman will redefine unbridled self-indulgence as a virtue, as the ultimate test of personal freedom, in the near future. Believe me, I would give everything I own to be wrong on that point, but the truth is that far too many people tolerate Honeyman's newsgroup postings as long as they're presented in small, seemingly harmless doses. What these people fail to realize, however, is that either Honeyman has no real conception of the sweep of history, or he is merely intent on winning some debating pin by trying to pierce a hole in my logic with "facts" that are taken out of context. I know that I'm emotional now, but Honeyman would have us believe that he would sooner give up money, fame, power, and happiness than perform a slatternly act. Yeah, right.

Honeyman's lies come in many forms. Some of his lies are in the form of belief systems. Others are in the form of hastily mounted campaigns. Still more are in the form of folksy posturing and pretended concern and compassion.

It's easy enough to hate Honeyman any day of the week on general principles. But now I'll tell you about some very specific things that Honeyman is up to, things that ought to make a real Honeyman-hater out of you. First off, it's unfortunate that he has no real education. It's impossible to debate important topics with someone who is so mentally handicapped. He does not tolerate any view that differs from his own. Rather, Honeyman discredits and discards those people who contradict him along with the ideas that they represent. For better or for worse, he ignores the most basic ground rule of debate. In case you're not familiar with it, that rule is: attack the idea, not the person. Despite the obvious fact that we should give Honeyman a taste of his own medicine, one of Honeyman's favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it's always his solutions that grant him the freedom to abet a resurgence of slovenly, atrabilious fascism, never the original problem.

PhantomChaos

If Honeyman gets his way, we will soon be engulfed in a Dark Age of imperialism and indescribable horror. That's why I'm telling you that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to show Honeyman how he is as wrong as wrong can be. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why I have absolutely no idea why Honeyman makes such a big fuss over incendiarism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved -- issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that I have often maintained that reasonable people can reasonably disagree. Unfortunately, when dealing with Honeyman and his adherents, that claim assumes facts not in evidence. So let me claim instead that we ought to preserve the peace. That'll make Honeyman think once -- I would have said "twice" but I don't see any indication that he has previously given any thought to the matter -- before trying to lead us, lemminglike, over the precipice of self-destruction. As will become apparent in the blink of an eye, when Honeyman tells us that human life is expendable, he somehow fails to mention that he makes no sense at all. He fails to mention that this is a truth that Honeyman's lieutenants are told by Honeyman that they cannot acknowledge, lest they give aid and comfort to the rest of us. And he fails to mention that he says that he holds a universal license that allows him to embark on wholesale torture and slaughter of innocent civilians. But then he turns around and says that his philosophies are a breath of fresh air amid our modern culture's toxic cloud of chaos. You know, you can't have it both ways, Honeyman. It makes me sick to think that he might eviscerate freedom of speech and sexual privacy rights within a short period of time. But let's not lose sight of the larger, more important issue here: his ignorant, stinking announcements. Honeyman really believes that mudslinging, rabid schizophrenics aren't ever addlepated. What kind of Humpty-Dumpty world is he living in? I've excogitated one theory that almost completely answers that question. Unfortunately, it fails to take into account that I've repeatedly pointed out to Honeyman that only the assembled and concentrated might of a national passion rearing up in its strength can search for solutions that are more creative and constructive than the typically snooty ones championed by subhuman segregationists. That apparently didn't register with him, though. Oh, well; I guess Honeyman commonly appoints ineffective people to important positions. He then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for Honeyman to create an ideological climate that will enable him to make people suspicious of those who speak the truth. Don't be fooled: The fact of the matter is that we could opt to sit back and let Honeyman address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people's lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. I think I've dished it out to Leland Honeyman as best as I can in this letter. I hope you now understand why I say that his communications stink of cover-ups, stalls, diversionary tactics, legal maneuverings, and other measures that put the gods of heaven into the corner as obsolete and outmoded and, in their stead, burn incense to the idol Mammon.

LIOPA

WOW...........

Cevert

As a Hayek fan, I'd suggest the "market" (OSO as we know it) has spoken.