The precedent is clear: a "priveleged expert" (a) can libel his critics as
being complicit in murder, i.e., a lynching
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Magdoff_and_espionage&…
+
whereas (b) citing verifiable sources is construed by the good ol' boy
network as "personal attacks".
Fred said:
"I more or less agree with you on the Venona material"
Fred:
Do you have any sources to support Cberlet original research POV? Please
give him a hand if so.
Nobs01
On 1/19/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It's pretty clear that he doesn't mean a lynching in a literal sense, so
it
doesn't count as libel under any interpretation.