Logistical questions occur within an immediate set of conditions. In _advance_ of such (usually unpredictable) conditions neither the question nor any answer has much content. The recruiting station here in Bloomington/Normal is in a location which makes it iffy whether there is any space on which we could legally stand while leafletting there. So various concrete logistical and tactical questions can arise in that context. _And_, I don't know now whether we have the forces to carry out any logistical or tactical questions we might be faced with were we to attempt to (regularly) leaflet or picket that recruiting station. The "by whom" question is I think bizarre; any answer to it in the abstract would be, I suspect, an empty tautology.
Consider the fourth of your initial responses: "Fourth, disobey the laws of channeled communication by engaging in varieties of 'guerilla' public political performance."
I agree -- and I think this can be discussed to some extent, but I don't believe the actual practice of it can be theorized in advance. Back in May of 1970 at a large rally held in the Union cafeteria here I used a phrase including the word "guerilla" as you use it here. My idea then (this was in the first flush of excitement after the Kent State killings) was to write leaflets and organize small groups of two or three to DISCUSS, in the hallways outside particular classes, the way in which current events related to the content of those classes. The idea was just as foggy then as in this recall of it.
[Digression: The word "guerilla" came back to haunt me a year later when they launched a huge investigation to determine if I should be fired. Amongst the testimony the investigating committee unearthed was a student who had been at the meeting an interpreted it as meaning we should start smashing windows or something like that.]
It never got off the ground for a number of reasons. First, the break-up of SDS and the demoralization following the murder of Fred Hampton had both left us without decent cadre locally _and_ wiped out whatever gains in organizing we had made in 1968-9. Secondly, the idea was under-theorized. Probably someone somewhere pulled off something like this. It would amount to something like a large number of mini-teach-ins held in hallways or in front of buildings. But such theorization (even if done for us elsewhere on some maillist) would have been toothless without the core cadre to first understand it through provisional practice of it and then implement it, in the process recruiting more cadre. And in the process of training that cadre further theorizing the practice.
So I guess I've argued myself into at least partial agreement with you that Doug's questions are useful, with the qualification only that their use lies partly in noting the extent to which they cannot be answered very concretely in abstraction from an ongoing practice. Your suggestion, quoted above, is certainly correct, but I will be (pleasantly) surprised if it can developed much until there is a larger and more coherent movement than we have now.
Carrol