null@myemail.net wrote in article <5i3vrt$aad@life.ai.mit.edu>...
Hallam-Baker, pissing all over his own train of logic, wrote:
I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in court if asked.
What are you going to testify to?
He sent me a considerable amount of material in private email. Anonynous insults do not impress me.
To Bell's scheme not being a threat to anybody because it would never work? That it is nothing more than a theoretical exercise which does not present a danger to a single soul?
I don't think it was a theoretical exercise. I think Jim scrambled his brain with a dodgy dose of amphetamines or similar. His posts sounded to me like the work of someone with a personality disorder who was working his way up to psychopath.
That it is preposterous of the government to prosecute someone on the basis of a pie-in-the-sky, preposterous idea?
It may sound loony to you but I have no doubt that Jim believed what he wrote and intended others to act on it. I'm not sure that he acted on it himself but I would not be at all suprised. Phill