From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@ocelot.Rutgers.EDU>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 1996 12:52:29 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net
Message-ID: <01I3W57WCR2C8Y500P@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"richieb@teleport.com"  "Rich Burroughs" 23-APR-1996 17:19:45.60

>On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote:
>[snip]
>> 	However, one reference in this report to Weaver's calling for a meeting
>> to oppose the "Zionist Occupation Government" does provide an argument for
>> calling him a racist of the anti-Semitic variety. On the other hand, the
>> only person claiming this is the FBI's informant; the truth of his
>> statements has been called into doubt.

>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.

>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). I don't call Weaver a hero, either, but the most evil ones at Ruby
Ridge were the governmental types.
	-Allen