Some random and unorganized thoughts on this whole issue from the list's token anti-capitalist: Bob Black (the anarchist) has declared that he has a standing "no first use" policy regarding the state. He won't sic the cops on anyone unless they do it first. Noam Chomsky has publicly stated that, on principle, he won't sue anyone for defamation or libel no matter what they do--and he's had plenty of opportunities. I feel the same way (though I don't see completely eye-to-eye with either of those guys). I would have to be harmed in a VERY serious way before I'd consider calling the cops. As for lawsuits, pretty much the same thing goes, and I almost can't imagine suing anyone for something they _say_ about me. This is something I never think about; it seems absolutely basic to my anarchist views. Unicorn: If you choose to be involved with the straight business world, you've got to deal with the heat. MY views could potentially get me in much more hot water than yours could, but I (grudgingly) accept the risk. I'm not dying to have the capitalists I work for see my rants, but if they do, I've got to live with it. They know me and know that I've never screwed them, and they can believe what they want to believe. I'm not thrilled about this, but c'est la vie. You wimped out at the very first sign of heat, and invoked the LAW (i.e, the state) as your first line of defense. I don't think you specified exactly what the settlement with tmp was, but what could it have possibly been? Payment to you? How would that have helped assuage the concerns of your business associates? An apology from tmp to the associates? Big deal. The guy's obviously a nut-ball, and you could have explained that; presumably the associates have some amount of trust in you. If it _was_ a payment, that's just sleazy and greedy, the standard ambulance-chaser cliche ("You've done irreparable damage to me, but maybe if you agreed to pay me $3,000..."). And how could the tiny amount tmp could afford compensate for the "millions" of dollars you've lost? If the settlement was for an apology, again, big deal--do the associates take this anonymous net.lunatic seriously enough that an apology would make everything all better? And you now look silly, because he's reneged on that part of the deal anyway. So in this case, using the lawyer weapon has had much the same effect as the standard statist weapon ("I know: we'll pass a LAW! _That_ will stop them!")--that is, no effect at all. Tim May (who I have certain obvious philosophical differences with) has been completely consistent on this issue, and his word carries that much more weight because he's been subjected to Detweiler's most relentless battering. THIS is the real world. Your anarchist principles have just been put to the test, and you buckled, immediately falling back on a statist solution. "Right-wing" anarchists are always bashing liberals and "P.C." types for being thin-skinned and unable to stand up to harmless name-calling. Well, you've shown yourself to be just as thin-skinned. The only difference I see is that there's MONEY involved. So? Liberals are wimps for trying to sue you for calling them names, but you're justified in suing because the name-calling has cost you money? And all because you're dealing with straights who can't handle reality? And meanwhile, YOU'RE the one who messed up and blew your own cover? Hmmm... It's very late, and I'm groggy, so I apologize in advance if any of the above seems unnecessarily blunt. It's not intended that way. --Dave. -- Dave Mandl Planetary Work Machine, Brooklyn Branch dmandl@panix.com