Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
>
>
> The situation in question is discussion among self-identified
> leftists here and elsewhere.
And a reply to any of my own posts focuses on (or even mentions parenthetically) my supposed motives, I simply stop reading and do not reply. If a given poster _always_ focuses, I filter his/her posts to the trash folder. I take it for granted that a focus on motive is indication of indifference to issues. It simply is not a useful way to spend one's time in replying to such. It is pointless to fish in poisoned waters.
> The question is whether one has
> material evidence to clarify a person's motives.
It works best to focus on content not motive even when the person concerned is in fact a provocateur. Back in 1970 or 1971 this fellow phoned Jan & me wanting to meet us. We met him in the cafeteria of the student union, and it turned out he wanted to talk about something called "The Andromeda Project," which apparently was a scheme to sabotage power plants around the nation. We responded by (a) taking him seriously and (b) proposing that instead of the Andromeda Project we form a political study group. A frined, X, recently out of prison, happened to notice us talking to the fellow and identified him as the narc who had gotten X arrested. He was, it seemed, an _amateur_ police informer -- though I think he hoped for a professional career as such. I don't know what happened to him.
X was an interesting fellow. For a number of years he edited and published what I believe was the last "underground paper" in the nation to cease publication, the Post-Amerikan here in b/n. Then he returned to school, got his BA and applied for law school -- having gotten one of the highest scores ever on the Law entrance exam (or whatever they call it). He then got straight As at the University of Illinois Law School and gave the Valedictorian address. In that address he spoke of his prison experiences among other things. I understand that at the end of the speech a third of the audience were on their feet cheering and the rest were sitting on their hands and scowling. I believe X is at present (the last I knew) ACLU director of the Denver region. X probably wouldn't care if I named him here.
Carrol
Incidentally, one of the major reasons for political study groups is that they weed out all but the hardiest provocateurs.
Carrol
Incidentally, if I _were_ to speculate on the motives of motive-mongerers I would be tempted merely to tell the old lawyer's joke. If the law is against you, emphasize facts. If the facts are against you, emphasize the law. If both facts and law are against you, talk about the opposing attorney. I can't know, but that does seem to pretty well characterize most of the posts focusing on motive on lbo-talk.