>It's not self-pity, it's a reflexive strategy by WWP. Any attack on their
>politics is "red baiting"; any challenge to their methods is "a military
>action."
And yet, as you know, the "methods" of WWP were not in question at all. As you know, this was the sequence of events:
Burford: declares that it is necessary for the anti-war movement to raise "global government" issues.
Paulsen: asks what class content this has.
Seay: in order to disrupt this thread, throws out a jibe about Hungary in 1956.
Paulsen: points out the irrelevance of what Seay is doing.
Kelley: in her "turd post", asks why I'm not conversing with Seay directly.
Paulsen: points out that Seay is not trying to engage in conversation, but simply being disruptive.
Dennis: accuses me of "weeping" and advises me to grow balls. ("Tears-baiting", a la Nixon/Muskie, is considered a useful tactic in Dennis's corner of the macho left, I suppose)
Newman: acquits me of "weeping" but declares that I am engaged in a "reflexive strategy" of defending WWP's "methods".
I will let the rest of the list decide for themselves which of the posts in this series display the characteristics of unresponsive "reflex". Meanwhile, "the caravan moves on."
lp