This may come as a shock, but I am not avoiding your questions, I have no idea what questions you are talking about, and upon reviewing you postings I find many questions.
Some questions I think I have answered.
Some questions are based on your aggressive misrepresentations of my work and deserve no answer since they fall into the category of "when did you stop beating your iguana?"
But in the interest of clarity, perhaps you could actually ask the question again, rather than assuming I am perched over my keyboard waiting to respond to you.
-Chip
----- Original Message ----- From: John Halle <john.halle at yale.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 11:26 PM Subject: Re: Moon Pie and dealing with wackos/ Slanderous Paranoia
> >
> > Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 16:05:08 -0500
> > From: "Chip Berlet" <cberlet at igc.org>
> > Subject: Re: Moon Pie and dealing with wackos/ Slanderous Paranoia
> >
> >
> > What substantive matter at hand? We are still waiting for you to explain
why
> > you think you can get away with misrepresenting the views of Ken and me,
and
> > then whining like a spoiled brat when we criticize you for it. How can
Ken
> > and I engage you in a discussion when you use these tactics?
> >
> > - -Chip
> >
>
> Hi Chip,
>
> Glad that you're interested in hearing my views on these matters.
>
> I will consider responding when you deal with the two postings of mine
> from weeks ago that you evidentally didn't think were worth troubling
> with at the time.
>
> However, even then I probably won't.
>
> Rather than providing evidence that I have misrepresented the views of you
> and your clique, you have resorted to the sort of personal attacks that I
> mentioned previously and that are, alas, all too typical of a particular
> failed model of activism--a subject which I hope will continue to be
> discussed in another thread. Given this fact, I don't feel that our
> exchanges are productive either for us, or useful for the other
> participants on the list. I'm surprised that you don't agree.
>
> I could be convinced otherwise but only with reasonable arguments.
>
> Best,
>
> John
>