[net.politics] It's not that bad, or is it?

oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (10/08/85)


    Let's clear away some small misunderstandings.
	       	     ------------------------------
>     	     Silly, OAF?  Come, now.   Be  serious.   If  they  were
>	silly,  why  do you so vehemently oppose me?  Why do you not
>	offer legitimate refutation, instead of "Ad  Hominems?"   Is
>	it  because  there  are  no  legitimate  refutations  to  be
>	offered?				[DON BLACK]
		     ------------------------------
    I said that people accusing you of being unable to read  and  write,
and behave like a professional, are silly.  Surely you cannot argue with
that.
    Besides,  what  makes  you think I oppose you?  You claim that every
"attack" I write strengthens your case.  Aren't you glad for a  critical
audience?   Where  are  your  referees,  if  not  here?  Where will your
message be tested, if not here?  Who will point out your slip-ups if not
us?   Those  guys  on the firing ranges, survival camps and prison gangs
are already on your side - why preach to the  already  converted?   That
sharpens  no  skills.   In  the  past,  you  even seemed pleased with my
replies:
		     ------------------------------
>	    Oded
>    	    Your tome comparing me to a  KGB agent  was  very,  very
>	good.   I  really got a chuckle out of it.  I'm going to get
>	some mileage out of it, too.	
>					[13 Aug 1985 08:18:32-PDT]
	       	     ------------------------------
    I aim to please.

>	Be grateful.  The more I say, the less I have time to do.
		     ------------------------------
    Partly, you provide your own cover, no?  Am I ungrateful?

>	Besides, while all the attention is drawn to myself, somebody
>	else is doing the "dirty work."
		     ------------------------------
    That's almost as good as the real thing, I guess.

>>    What  a fine alibi, being "too obvious."			[Me]
>	Yup.  Worked well for Hitler,  didn't  it?   Didn't  he  say
>	exactly  what  he  was  going  to do?  It was so ridiculous,
>	nobody believed him.
		     ------------------------------
    Absolutely.  Wheels within wheels.  Beautiful.  I really mean  that.

>	It's  relatively  easy to  change  the  Date/Time group on an
>	E-mail  message.   It's also  relatively  easy to change  the 
>	To/From line.
		     ------------------------------
    If you have a reason.

>	Go ahead  and track  me, Oaf.  Mail  messages  leave  a trail
>	through the systems.  
		     ------------------------------
    Nyet, spassibo, I cannot track you.  I'd be a fool to try.

[Re Samantha Smith]
>	PURELY coincidental, Oaf.   Since  the  report  of  the  DoT
>	investigation  is  a  public document, I'm sure anybody with
>	any amount of intelligence should be able to see how  stupid
>	your allegations are.
		     ------------------------------
    You'd  know if anyone does - down to the contents of the report, and
what it took to get them there.  (Note the mildness of our differences.)

>	Samantha was a gleam in her father's eye in 1972, Oaf.  Let's
>	try 1982 for a little accuracy, something which you are not 
>	noted for.
		     ------------------------------
    Correction gratefully accepted.  I am pleased you read  so  closely,
and  do  not resent my typos being exposed.  (Nor do I mind the personal
needling.  Everyone's usually so damn polite to me.)

>	Her little  jaunt  was quite the propoganda  coup, wasn't it?
>	Mighty generous of Uncle Yuri, say what?
		     ------------------------------
    "Generous  like  a  fox"  comes  to mind.  [In the background, dying
screams of standard similes going through my private linguistic mangle.]

>	What else am I good  in,  Oaf?   Small  arms,  air  assault,
>	demolitions,  communications,  cryptogaphy,  sniper tactics,
>	armor,  crew-serviced  weapons,   clandestine   photography,
>	meteorolgy,  propoganda,  etc.  You know, all the good stuff
>	an  operative  should   know.    (Yes,   including   ComBloc
>	weaponry.)
		     ------------------------------
    I have every faith in you.  Always did.

>	Besides, why waste such an effort on such a small target?  
		     ------------------------------
    You'd know better than I.  Given your capabilities, as listed above,
that sounds like an afternoon's work.  Lots of remaining vacation  time.

>	Well, obviously, Oaf, your  definition  of  freedom  and  my
>	definition  are  two  different things.  I don't believe you
>	know what freedom is.
		     ------------------------------
    Actually, we're not so far apart  on  that  one.   Recall  an  older
message of yours:
		     ------------------------------
>	I suspect basically you are an honest man.  I  also  suspect
>	that  we  agree that the biggest threat to the both of us is
>	the Comintern.		[Monday, 19 Aug 1985 05:34:52-PDT]
		     ------------------------------
    No argument.

>	The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.  
		     ------------------------------
    Again, no argument.      
    Misunderstandings cleared up yet?

    Gentle readers:  The next page is in the public service, on a  topic
I consider important.  Even if you haven't read this far, please look at
it.  Thank you.

    The  common reaction to Donald Black's postings has been an inchoate
desire to silence him, shut him  up,  make  a  fool  of  him,  hurt  DEC
financially  by  sending  future  purchasing  decisions  elsewhere  (and
publicize it), or merely studiously ignore him.  We have seen  a  stream
of messages on that subject, ranging from the most incompetent drivelers
to Chuq Von Rospach himself - quite a spectrum.
    But  this  reaction to unpleasant postings is cowardice in its worst
form,  an  ostrich   reaction   to   the   ugliness   and   intellectual
distastefulness  of  life  itself.   All  it  accomplishes  is to insult
oneself  by  displaying  appalling  ignorance   of   ostrich   behavior.
[Actually,  they  drop  down  and  lay their heads on the ground in tall
grass, thereby becoming virtually invisible on the  veldt.   They  don't
bury  their  heads,  and will run away if their tormentor approaches too
closely.]
    How shallow our collective belief in the first amendment.  Don Black
by  himself  is able to make our educated minds reject it in the rush to
escape irritating stimuli.  Face it:  He has EVERY RIGHT to lie, defame,
denigrate   and   insult   anyone   he   wants,   deny   evidence  whose
incontrovertibility is as solid as the bones of the dead or  the  bricks
of  the ovens, claim that Mexico is communist, that the Cubans are about
to attack Florida, that the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers sleep  with
the  Gorbachevs  and Ogarkovs, that the UN protects Israel, that English
is the most difficult language, that  the  US  (and  Canada??)  are  the
promised  land,  Slavs are Jews and the British the sons of Isaac, night
is day, black is white, freedom is slavery, and South Africa a jewel  of
light  on the dark continent of Uppity Commie Niggers.  He ISN'T kidding
when he says "America First, Without Apology."  This is the only country
on  earth  where  one  can pull that line of shit (not even Canada,) and
don't anybody think he doesn't know  it.   Nor  should  anyone  fail  to
realize that that is our strength, paradoxic though it may seem.
    THAT is what freedom is about!  Can you doubt  his  Russian  masters
use  his  ilk  to  make  us  regret and despise our hard-won heritage of
liberty?  We _cannot_ demand that he  "make  sense,"  "face  facts,"  or
"discard  prejudice,"  without selling out our own freedoms as well.  He
must be free to do otherwise,  until  his  own  efforts  ring  down  the
curtain on the values upon which this country was founded.  209 years is
long enough for such an experiment - now let's get some  direction  back
into  human  affairs.   If  you  doubt  me, read some Identity Christian
tracts.  I'm sure he'll happily send you a few - just write.  [Don  will
correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm sure in his heart of hearts he agrees.]
    So no complaints about his postings do ANYONE BUT HIM the  slightest
bit  of  good.   If we interfere with his freedom to utter them we close
the coffin on our own.  If you wish to defeat him, you can  ONLY  expose
his every lie, every half-truth, every misinterpretation and every false
insinuation.  You must show the SAME ENERGY in  exposing  the  truth  as
decrying his lies.  If you feel personally threatened, sure, you can arm
and guard yourselves against his bully-boys, those bikers and losers and
flotsam  and jetsam of this society, ministers of hate and prophets of a
coming Armageddon, with the Jews and the Commies rising up to steal this
land  from  its  true  owners.   [Presumably  that's  the  Sioux and the
Iroquois, though he may claim  different.]   But  note  that  knowledge,
communication and organization are more effective than guns and bullets,
even when Don Black shows his cohorts how to get automatic fire from  an
AR-15  by  modifying  the sear to take M-16 clips.  [Don, please correct
any errors in mechanical detail.  Thank you.]
    But  duck  down  into your shells, tell DEC it will cost them if you
must listen to that nasty man, pretend he isn't there (is that  how  you
treat  muggers and rapists, I wonder?) and you will only win the time it
takes to roll you over before they slice your bellies open.  Don't  ever
think you can shut him up without becoming _just_ _like_ _him_, in which
case he will have won by default.

    I am awestruck by Mr. Black's discipline, energy and dedication.  He
will beat us by making us discard voluntarily what once made us  strong.
He  can win without even fighting.  THERE is a man!  <Bug me with gender
specifics and I'll shootcha all.  You have been warned.>

    But   don't  despair.   Lest  you  think  you're  dealing  with  the
Terminator, note that the fellow is human after all:

>	Mr. Katkov and his associates are just more innocent victims ...
>					[3 Oct 85 17:20:54 GMT]
		     ------------------------------
    _Nobody_ but a confederate of Katkov's would call a Soviet diplomat,
whose particular talents would send him  to  Beirut  in  late  1985,  an
"innocent victim," nor would anyone but a man in the same condition note
that Katkov died without "any mention of his family or hometown."   What
truer  eulogy  than  this short but heartfelt tribute to a slain fighter
for the cause,  who will never see the final victory?
    Appearances to the contrary, he even sees the deeper truths:
>		"...in a useless war that can never end."
		     ------------------------------
    Myself,  I'd call it a tactical error.  
    Doesn't Comrade Black agree?
-- 

Oded Feingold     MIT AI Lab.   545 Tech Square    Cambridge, Mass. 02139
OAF%OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA   {harvard, ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mitvax!oaf   617-253-8598