>I would like to thank list member Chuck Munson for his intemperate
>diatribe May 1 in opposition my article about the April 20 antiwar
>protest posted earlier in the day and titled Historic Antiwar
>Demonstraton. As with all complex political articles containing many
>facets, including internal movement contradictions, a writer always
>fears that he or she may have gotten some major facts wrong, or
>misinterpreted something important. Munson’s take-no-prisoners attack
>has eased this writer’s mind considerably. I consider his polemic to be
>empty of substance, and delivered in a style amounting to
>self-refutation. Thus, my only reply to his fulmination is to encourage
>him to keep up the good work.
What part refutes itself? Chuck's pointing out ANSWER's propensity to cook numbers (personally witnessed by list member Liza Featherstone, who wrote it up for The Nation)? The slighting of other organizers' roles in making A20 possible? The deadening style of rallies, with 55 speeches that no one wants to listen to?
Inquiring minds are desperate to know!
Doug