> My point being, responses... little slams and personality oriented attacks
> as entered on the angryyoungwhitekid blog are a waste of time...
> "creeping ineffectuality".
The anecdote on that blog is confirmation of several stories about ANSWER's activities against this anti-racist coalition.
> IMHO, if you ignore the nuisances, first they lash out, then they go away.
> Abbie Hoffman put a twist on an old activist thought (I think Saul Alinsky):
> If you react to criticism, you end up doing everyone's "thing" but "your own".
> Also, if you're busy compiling a list of critiques, the same applies.
I've compiled a list of critiques on Infoshop.org, but I've hardly been "busy" compiling them. They have been placed there over the course of the last 5+ years. The stuff on the ISO and British SWP were originally put up in response to anti-anarchist attacks published by those organizations.
> Critiquing other organizations is a waste... more disruptive of your own
> organization's activities than the group you're busy "ancedotalizing".
There are two problems with the practice of ignoring criticism. One problem is that you miss an opportunity to correct false information generated by the critics. Even Chomsky admits that he will respond to critics who get things wrong about him and his writings. The other problem with ignoring criticism is that you miss an opportunity to engage in politics, to use the opponent's words against them. You miss a chance to explain to neutral people how your side differs from their side.
The WWP chose the strategy of publicly ignoring their critics while bashing them through back channels. They chose to ignore me and other critics. Meanwhile, we made mincemeat of them. It's kind of like shooting fish in a barrel at this point. I'm bored and people are tired of ANSWER and talk about them.
> Anyone who "needs to know" ...whatever... about them, already does.
No, they don't.
Chuck