Six questions to the Spooners

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at
Sun Sep 1 05:24:08 MDT 1996

I've already posted one brief comment on the reply by Hans E.
to some of my questions. Another may be appropriate to add
at once, I find.

>I will answer the part of Rolf's questions which refer to me.
>But there will also be a
>moderated general list.  Things are not finalzed yet, but it looks
>like we will have a moderating team for that list consisting of a team
>of stable, seasoned, and respected revolutionaries;
>It is my view that in such a list the moderators would have a
>good case to ask you not to post, or at least not to post much, for
>the reasons explained in the paragraph which offended you so.

On your "offended", Hans, was my first comment. And I'd like to add
that of course *those* "reasons" which you advanced in that
paragraph, under those circumatances which are known to all, are
things which, to *all* revolutionaries, by no means only to such
(so far unknown) persons who might be considered stable, seasoned
and respected ones, in no way can reflect negatively on the person
referred to in that paragraph, but *solely*, and very negatively
indeed, to put it mildly, on the person who wrote it.

This matter is not a question that concerns only me.

Suppose that *those* "reasons" of yours should be *accepted*
by a body of people that has any say on preventing me - in this
case in point - in part or completely from posting to any list,
however "strictly" moderated - this would indeed open the door
to *complete fascist arbitrariness* (within that part of "cyber
space" we're dealing with here).

So I think it's best to warn everybody of this, even at this
point when I don't know whether there might actually be any
"takers"  of this particular "argumentation" of yours, Hans.

Well, there are a couple of such "takers" I know of, namely,
to begin with, Louis N. P., who was the one that, even a couple
of days before you, actually advanced rather precisely this
"argumentation", wasn't it - after the debate between him and me
which he suggested had gone on for a while ("too far", might one
guess?.) He combined it with some propaganda for the "wholesome"
services of - Chris B., about whom on 30.06 I had posted a little
piece in five parts, "Why do I think Chris is a cop?". And earlier,
the well-known writer "Quispe" had come up whith that "Andropov
syndrome" against me too, under circumstances that are no secret

But even if you do seem to have this (not too savoury, what?) little
group of people with you on your "Andropov syndrome" gambit in this
case, this does not make this "syndrome" any less vile as an "argument",
does it, Hans, or perhaps change one bit the *only* standpoint which
*revolutionaries* can take up against you people who're advancing it
as a such: That of TOTAL, UNRELENTING WAR against the likes of you.

Rolf M.

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list