>I have no particular affection for the RC, but these references to what
>R was or was not at 14 are worse than smears -- they make the writers
>look like either gaping readers of the National Inquirer or just plain
>assholes. What do a person's actions at 14 have to do with who he is 60
>years later. So much spam! Even when personal attacks are valid, they
>are counter-productive from a left perspective. Sometimes lbo-talk reads
>like material cut as too banal from the last issue of People.
There's no trace here of your feeling superior to the authors of such material, right? Because we all know you'd object to that - you've told us so too many times to count.
Doug