kelley at pulpculture.org wrote:
>
> At 11:48 AM 5/3/02 -0700, Thomas Seay wrote:
> >Ok, Kelley. I just think that it should be clear that
> >he isn't coming from an "independent" point of view on
> >these matters.
>
> Ok, Thomas. AFAIK, Jack Smith has been a member of this list for quite some
> time, regularly posting his missives from The Hudson. He clearly identifies
> his affiliation at the top, uses the by line Jack Smith, and closes with
> Jack Smith.
Thomas simply is a few decades behind in the art of red-baiting, and so he's having the same difficulty the press did in the late '60s in red-baiting SDS. The principle device of red-baiting was to reveal that someone who pretended to be otherwise was "really" a red. So in order to red-bait a red you had to first show that he/she was pretending not to be a red. It worked in the '40s through the early '60s, but began to come apart at the seams then. Too many people began broadcasting they were reds. That's Jack Smith's background. Probably Thomas is also unaware of Smith's background with the _Guardian_ -- or was it someone else who muttered darkly that "Smith" must be a false name?
Carrol