Ah, here it is right here:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=86dd0277-c6ee-4e3c-83e9-0bb468c5c40d&p=2

Daniel Fischel is one. There is also Richard Epstein, a prominent
libertarian. Now say, "Thanks for giving me this information that I
asked for!" And I will be all like, "You're welcome, you fascist
weirdo, you!" And then you'll be all like, "ZOMG I am not a fascist"
and I'll be all like, "Are too!"

Regards,

Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

I was hoping for someone a bit smarter and polite than you, but I
suppose this is about the highest quality of debate I can expect to
get.

But if we are going to debate, you need to start by not making
nonsensical accusations about me. For instance, I am not voting for
Obama. I am a libertarian. I simply prefer Obama to McCain. Second of
all, the matter of Obama editing papers was not the only reason I have
shared. If you can start by acknowledging that this is the case,
instead of beginning with nonsense, then I will take the trouble of
going through my New Republics to find the article on Obama's
relationship with the conservative U of C professors.

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:00 AM, greatbanana@frontiernet.net
<greatbanana@frontiernet.net> wrote:

so,

do you really believe that editing someone else's article is a sign of
presidential judgment?  A reason to vote for someone for president?  That is
what you said at proteinwisdom.  That is the one example that you could come
up with to post as a reason to vote for Obama.  I have to assume you meant
it.  tell me how that is not asinine.  And, before you go off on a tangent,
I realize you have other reasons for voting for Obama.  But, that is the one
reason you felt was good enough to share, so that is the one you should
defend.

Also, please cite me some conservatives at the University of Chicago who say
they support Obama for president.  You kept implying that this was so and
you made the argument that you only deal in "facts".  You cited to one NY
Times article which did not support your contention in any way.  Please
enlighten.

You wanted desperately for someone to engage you in email.  Here I am,
please respond directly to my questions rather than you normal routine of
changing the converstation entirely.  I understand that it is difficult to
defend the idiotic things you spew, but please try.