From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 2c28ce5ae9b5518482a8747ee42599b6b7e1d06c7607bab934c61e1da6c08953
Message ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960423180035.15353B-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
Reply To: <01I3W57WCR2C8Y500P@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1996-04-24 09:06:24 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:06:24 +0800
From: Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 17:06:24 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net
In-Reply-To: <01I3W57WCR2C8Y500P@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GUL.3.93.960423180035.15353B-100000@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
> From: IN%"richieb@teleport.com" "Rich Burroughs" 23-APR-1996 17:19:45.60
>
> >I'm sure it has been. That doesn't mean his report is untrue. Is the
> >standard of proof the same for both of these issues? We need proof to
> >establish that Weaver is a racist, but not to establish that the FBI
> >informant is lying?
>
> I require a higher standard of proof for worse accusations. I
> consider calling someone a racist a worse insult than calling them a
> liar. Furthermore, that this is an FBI _informant_ is a strike against
> the person to begin with in terms of trustworthiness.
Interesting. Thanks for explaining your terms. I disagree with everything
you're saying. :-)
I consider "racist" to be an ideological label, not an insult at all
(though personally, I find them sick and wrong). There's a lot of people
out there who proudly call themselves racists, at least in private. Many
of them I can have a civilized discussion with. For me, liar is a stronger
word.
I think it's good to keep the FBI informed, in general terms only. Keeps
the FBI from wigging out, you know. Self-conscious "infiltrators" and
especially "provocateurs" I would consider to be liars, but someone who
merely keeps the lines of communication open is a friend of mine.
> >Separatist/supremacist... I don't see much difference between them, and I
> >believe the former is largely just a cover story for the latter. Weaver
> >is no hero, IMHO, though I believe the govt. fucked up big at Ruby Ridge.
>
> I don't approve of either separatists or supremacists; I just see the
> former as not quite as evil as the latter. Calling Weaver a supremacist is
> most common among the organizations that seem to believe that such actions as
> at Ruby Ridge are just fine, so long as they are against their enemies; it
> appears to be a public relations ploy (although the evidence is admittedly
> uncertain).
Who has defended the government's lies and shoot-at-sight rules of
engagement at Ruby Ridge? Please be specific. I think you're talking about
some straw man you read about in an NRA or militia pamplet.
-rich
Return to April 1996
Return to “Rich Graves <llurch@networking.stanford.edu>”