Date: 19 Mar 2003 14:38:00 +0200
From: ASWAD-AT-anarch.free.de (....)
Subject: Re: Reply to Catkawin



Dave wrote:

> > your version is not in accordance with the facts
> Well, of course, for you, these events will always remain
> fresh in your mind; but, for me, it was a long and complicated
> story which I had read quite a few years ago now, about
> something which happened far away, and I didn't keep any
> of the e-mails relating to it, and my memory, which was
> never exactly of a photographic nature, has got a lot
> worse with advancing age. So I would say that it is
> highly probable I have got things a bit muddled up.
> The only reason I mentioned this story is that you
> wondered why I hadn't criticised you for having
> a pseudonym, and, however muddled I may have been
> about the details, this story was in fact the explanation.

Although it is very true that these events will remain in my mind whereas  
others may suffer from fading memories or simply don't remember too  
precisely for various reasons, this is no reason and no excuse for  
lightheartedly spreading a twisted version publically! And you did not get  
things 'a bit muddled up', the version you gave comes pretty close to  
defamation.

The fact still is that I used an aka way before any threatening situation  
emerged.

> > Of course I felt grateful for any support in a situation
> > like that. Especially since the situation wasn't
> > taken serious at all by certain comrades who said
> > I was only trying to raise attention.
> You were accused of trying to attract attention?
Yes, and also to my face, when a new member of the organisation who took  
part in the meeting that Z ousted from our federation used a break to ask  
me about the goings-on and I gave him a 2-minute version for info. I was  
told I was talking about all that business far too much and seemed to want  
attention, and that I shouldn't have explained the stuff to that new  
comrade in all that detail.

> > Quite incidentially, these were persons who had
> > been threatened themselves some years earlier
> And yet they couldn't see the parallels?
I initially meant to say: of course not, but that's not correct. They  
*could* see the parallels, they did not want to.

catkawin
## CrossPoint v3.12d ##