DoreneFC at aol.com wrote:
>
> Thanks. Somehow that point escaped me when I skiimed
> local news after the
> fact about SF.
>
> I am not sure I want to go down this road today, but here
> goes: personally I
> think it was DARNED courteous of people who wanted to do
> property destruction
> to break off clearly beforehand.
>
> I am also amused by WWP's apparent line.Do you all think
> this is "we want to
> smash capitalism, but please don't do it during permitted
> rallies" or "we're
> so worried about our police files we don't want to
> endorse ..." or something
> else?
>
> DoreneC
Dorene
I'm not quite sure I understand your critique---on one hand you say it was a good thing that people who wanted to engage in property destruction broke off, but then you criticize "WWP" (or is it ANSWER?) for focusing on more 'legal means' of protest.
I don't think WWP or ANSWER are going to physically stop folks who wish to engage in activities that aren't sanctioned by the parade permits, so what exactly is your criticism? --- Sent from UnionMail Service [http://mail.union.org.za]