I frankly don't understand all this pre-debate trash talk. I must be getting into Kinsella's head.
In this latest outburst from Kinsella, he attempts to defend his calling me a clown:
As for saying “what a clown”—as any functioning modern English speaker will know, this is an informal way of scoffing at the implicit argument he seemed to be making: that my predictions about the Ronpaul.com dispute have some kind of bearing on the IP debate we are allegedly going to have.Again, as I pointed out at the time, there is nothing in the post Kinsella is referring to that tied his prediction about the RonPaul.com dispute into our IP debate. NONE. Kinsella is just reading something into the comment that isn't there. This was my response to Kinsella at the time:
You are reading much too much into the post. I had no intention of linking your lawyerly skills and your skill on IP theory. I have no understanding of your skills as a lawyer. As you know, I have questions about your views on IP theory.
I merely presented the post as a tiny bit of human drama. Nothing more. You stepped up and gave your opinion on the likely outcome of Ron Paul's suit, if it goes to court. I just found it interesting. No linkage to your IP theory, that is an incorrect jump on your part. Nothing in my post indicates I am attempting to do that.Anyone can go back to the original post and read for himself, I do not in anyway suggest that Kinsella's handicapping of a RonPaul.com legal decision has anything to do with his views on IP. In fact, I make clear in the first and second sentences of the post that there is a distinction between the IP debate and the legal opinions in decisions.
I have a major philosophical disagreement with Stephan Kinsella over his views on IP, which we will debate in early April. However, I am not an IP attorney and hold no strong opinions on how current IP law is interpreted by various legal and other ruling bodies.Thus, Kinsella just misunderstood the post completely. I wasn't implying anything, in fact, right from the start, I separated the two.
He then makes this odd statement:
[...]he has delayed the debate already what seems to me to be an inordinate time.He invited me to debate on January 26th, I immediately responded:
What does your schedule look like for a date. February is very tight, butOn January 30th, I wrote:
March is pretty open for me, except for the period I am going to be at Mises
for the Austrian Economics Research Conference 2013
As for a date, unfortunately, the more and more I look at my schedule,And we booked April 1. It simply, turned out that I tried to book a few things in March before booking the debate with Kinsella and I realized there were many more people I needed to see on the East Coast, in New York, Philadelphia and Washington D.C. (In addition to the lecture at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama). I am meeting venture capital people in NYC. Chris Rossini outside Philly, a television producer in DC, people on the Hill, K Street people and assorted others. It's a very tight schedule. So what I initially planned to be a one week trip on the East Coast is turning into a three week trip and I consider this debate important. I wanted to have plenty of time to re-read Kinsella's Anti-Intellectual Property book and some of his other papers. As anyone knows, travelling for business can be very hectic. I just wanted to give myself enough quiet time to read Kinsella's stuff and even more quiet time to think about how I want to juxtapose my view against Kinsella's. It is simply bizarre for Kinsella to read anything else into it. Indeed, I thought I was pretty clear to him. I repeat what I wrote to him:
it is going to have to be April. I am heading to the East Coast a
couple of weeks before AERC and I am jamming in as many meetings as
possible. I could squeeze our discussion in at some point, but I
really want to be fresh for the discussion, which means April,
especially since Chris Rossini is, in addition, double booking me for
my regular Sunday show, because he will be heading to Florida for
I am heading to the East Coast a couple of weeks before AERC and I am jamming in as many meetings as possible.I could squeeze our discussion in at some point, but I really want to be fresh for the discussion, which means April, especially since Chris Rossini is, in addition, double booking me for my regular Sunday show, because he will be heading to Florida for vacation.So why Kinsella wants to read more into this is beyond my understanding. It appears clownish (taken in the Kinsella sense of the term, of course).
And then we have this from Kinsella:
Who really believes Wenzel has a book coming out on IP? Of course he does not.As anyone following the posts at EPJ knows, I have been thinking about IP and have expressed views that are different than those held by Kinsella and others. Kinsella in his head may not think this will lead to a book, but he has nothing to ground it on. There is a book coming. Kinsella is as wrong about this as he is about IP, as he was when he predicted I wouldn't debate him. I don't know how else to put this, but Kinsella has a lot of theories rattling around in his head that will be proved wrong:
Starting with this one:
What a clown. Antoher prediciton: he will not debate me. He will find a way ot [sic] weasel out of it, like a worm.To be followed by this one:
Who really believes Wenzel has a book coming out on IP? Of course he does not.And, of course, he will be wrong with this also:
I have no reason to believe Wenzel will come out with any systematic case for IPAnd, LOL, why the hell is Kinsella so worried about my "legions of fans"?:
The bottom line is Wenzel is wrong on IP, and even his legions of fans mostly realize thisTo paraphrase Ayn Rand, I'm not writing for "my legions of fans," I am writing for myself.
As I explained during my recent interview at Daily Bell, I structured my life a long time ago so I could think independently and write independently, that is what I am doing.
Kinsella is as wrong about this as the other points I have outlined above. Bringing up my "legions of fans" is a very odd Ellsworth Toohey-like thing to for Kinsella to be doing.