Re: financial accusations

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My purpose with the original post in this thread was
to ask Marcelina to moderate the tone of her accusations and
think ten times before presenting them in a more systematic form.
She appears to have responded to that request and I welcome that.

Adolfo's reply appears to be on the verge of losing it.

>>>
Reply:  You are a hypocrite the size of a zeppelin, PC Burford.  You know
that such an investigation of the Lloyds account # published by Quispe in
this list - that is real cops work on behalf of imperialism - has already
began - and abruptly and shamefully ended too!.
<<<<

Since hypocrisy depends on the motivation of the person accused,
and Adolfo seems to have a very confused idea of my motivation,
whether my hypocrisy is the size of a zeppelin or not, rather misses
the mark.

But the next point verges on the psychotic - how could I know
that there had been a police investigation of that account
specifically, apart from the general warning in which I suggested
that people should be careful? Does anyone seriously believe this
l'st is not monitored by the security forces? And if Adolfo
puts the number of a bank account in the public sphere and then
has this quoted back to him in the course of a vicious flame war,
in which he is not wholly innocent, is it surprising the police
enquire?

Adolfo then draws a distinction between me
and the "real" police: this appears to be a theme of his style of
polemic. He knows I am not really a policeman but it is
OK to make out I am. Because someone
can be argued to think in a similar way to a reactionary person
or class, they *are* that reactionary person or class. They can
then be treated accordingly.


No I am not surprised that the bank account shows nothing dramatic.
I am surprised there were no payments into it at all.
Presumably there was some other way of handling income. and
no I do not want to know what it is, nor do I want this
publicised on the l'st. Adolfo is
engaging in more gymnastics in explaining here on this l'st. The people
he needed to explain to are the members of the London Sol Peru
committee who left because the did not trust him. And that may
have been more to do with his polemical sleight of hand than
any financial questions.

Unless Marcelina comes back with more details, which I hope she
does not, I think we can assume that those who parted company with
Adolfo in the Sol-Peru Committee in London expressed grave doubts
about his financial accountability. I see no reason at all
why that means he should be accused of being a thief, but he shows
every sign of dealing with people he regards as his intellectual
inferiors with contempt. It is reasonable to suppose these
people felt he was untrustworthy.

Blind with self-righteousness on this matter though Adolfo may be,
it is in his interests to understand what may have led up to these
criticisms and to cover his back against them in future.
Arrogant dismissals of people may rebound against him in the future.

CB






     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---