CDR: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?

[Harmon Seaver]

Reese wrote:

> Still crossposting liberally, I see.
>
> At 10:05 AM 14/09/00 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>  >Tim is guilty of statistics abuse, because it never happens to
>  >Tim he assumes it can never happen to anyone who is passing
>  >the local Nazi encampment.
>
> My own differences with Tim aside, what proof do you have that Tim
> drives past Nazi encampments?  Decry his "statistics abuse" while an
> equally underhanded conjecture emerges from your addled backside?
>
>  >What Tim does not explain is why sending a truck full of thugs
>  >off to beat up someone carrying a loaded, recently fired weapon
>  >is a reasonable or even a sensible response.
>
> Defending racism?  Please show where the defendants in the lawsuit
> were shown to possess such an implement.  It wasn't mentioned in
> this thread, nor do
>

     I think you are misunderstanding what he wrote -- and then you
further confuse the issue with this "defendants....shown to possess"
statement. The AN were the defendants, they clearly did have guns.
However, what I understood Phil to be saying is that the defendants
story about them thinking they were being fired upon, and then chasing
after the car, doesn't make a lot of sense. Would you chase after a car
carrying unkown number of enemy with unkown firepower who had just done
a driveby shooting with you as the target?
       Shoot back at them from behind a safe position, yes, and maybe
chase them if you had an APC, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to run
after them otherwise. And Phil isn't saying that the woman and her kid
had a gun at all, but just that the AN tried to BS everyone with that
story.