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&a... +
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@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.