Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 01:38:27 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: Louis G. tries to sneak away from forgery


Louis G. tries to sneak away from forgery [Posted: 06.01.97]

First of all, thank you Vladimir and Siddharth for countering
the attack on me which Louis Godena tried to justify by means
of a little dirty forgery and which was supported by Doug
Henwood too, all on 04.01 and under subject: "Rolf lets slip
both a foolish AND ill-advised remark".

Vladimir B. resented
>the intimidating tone of L. Godena's message to *this* list
and held that
>He'd be better advised to stay policing his own precinct.

I think so too. Like Louis Nobleman Proyect - who on M-I
issued a boot threat to the Klasberries for saying that US
imperialism might concievably be using people who were
calling themselves "Marxists", of "his" "Castroite" phoney
type, as puppets in the still ongoing hostage-taking
manoeuevre in Lima, the threat which caused my comment and
Zeynep's reply in the first place - Louis What's-Go(o)denaough-
for-the-Afghans obviously wants people to think he owns the
place. So in part does Doug Leftie Biz.

Siddharth C. pointed out:
>This is what you said Rolf wrote above. Here is part of that
>message that Rolf actually sent to the list.

And in a posting likewise on 04.01, I pointed out Louis G.:s
forgery attempt too. He had me "saying" that Zeynep "lacked
experience of *anti-imperialist* struggles", which would in
fact have been insulting and very much out of place. As many
know, Zeynep, living in Turkey and having taken place in
some sharp struggles there at no small personal risk, would
absolutely not have deserved such a comment by for instance
me, writing from a country where things in this respect are
incomparably more quiet. I in fact had written that it seemed
to me she lacked experience of *anti-subversive* struggles,
which is something rather different.

Now in his reply to this posting of mine, where I asked if it
wasn't pretty optimistic of him to think that I and/or others
wouldn't notice this little stupid forgery attempt of his,
Louis G. (once more on 04.01) tries to pretend that nothing
in particular had really happened and that he can just walk
away from it with a shrug of his shoulders:

>Rolf is right about one thing; the message that was forward
>to me had the words "anti-imperialist" rather than "anti-
>subversive" contained therein. This changes the letter, but
>not the spirit, of...[my posting] (!)

Ah! So I *am* right, this time, in saying that what I wrote
was what I wrote, as everybody could see too! Thank you most
graciously, Louis G.! Only, you aren't trying to explain *how*
you came to make "this little error", which most considerably
*did* change the spirit of what I had written in reply to
Zeynep.

Instead of simply pasting in a quote from it, you took the
trouble of retyping a large part of the whole paragraph, several
lines.

You could also have pasted in the quote, then just deleting
that particular word of mine and substituting your own little
change. But you made the extra effort of retyping several lines,
as is shown by another small change: my "é" in "naivité" got the
ASCII rendering "e'". The point of this may have been, I think,
to prepare for an "explanation", should someone point out your
forgery: "Well, for this or that technical reason, I didn't just
paste in a quote but retyped it - as you can see - and then
simply made the memory error of writing '-imperialist' instead
of '-subversive'."

Now that you did get caught out, you want people simply to
shrug it off: "Ooops, you're *right*, look-a-there, it does
read differently. But what does *that* matter?"

These methods are not good at all, Louis Godena. Such methods
are those of really dyed-in-the-wood political swindlers.

Not only this; you wrote too that *I* had "already revised"
my posting replying to Zeynep by my writing, when pointing
out your forgery attempt, also that I on my part still liked
it. This you wanted people to think was "acknowledging (by
damning with faint praise" my earlier "gaffe". How on earth
does that figure out?

Well, it's simply intended to give you a "reason" for your now
"retreating" from that forgery-attempt-supported attack of
yours, isn't it? Wily, wily, foxy, foxy.

You're "covering your retreat" by some "culture", introducing
a horse to ride away on:

>so, to quote Sir Nigel: "Fuck him and the horse he rode in on".

No. The way I heard it, Sir Nigel acually said: "Let's beat to
death that wriggeling poisonous snake in the grass!"

(That "horse-fucking" and "how-natural-and-nice-it-is-with-cocks-
in-other-men's-asses" discussion Louis G. in this posting tries
to warm up in other ways too, but as far as I'm concerned, it's
already over for this time.)

I have another "cultural" quote too, or a variation on one;
the original is one that has (almost) stuck in my mind from a
textbook long ago: "Please to remember the 5th (was it the 5th?)
of November - gunpowder treason and plot." (On Guy Fawkes' Day
in Britain, they supposedly were singing that.) As a small,
but still, parallel I offer:

"Please let's in our memories carry that 4th of Januarry
in the year '97 - a small plot that stank to high heaven."

I's really a quite instructive example of what methods such
phoney"Marxist" swindlers as Louis Godena will use, to what
lengths they're prepared to go.

Rolf M.






     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---