gdunkel@mindspring.com (IAC/ANSWER)

[Mike Friedman <mikedf@xxxxxxxx>]

Folks should READ before they get hepped up, and address what's actually
written (you too, Lou) and not something bothering them from some previous
posting. This writer's defense of ANSWER/IAC didn't even address Lou's
criticism, i.e. of the wisdom of housing two allegedly independent
organizations together...



At 01:59 AM 11/3/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 22:35:00 -0500
> From: gdunkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: No Subject
>
> On 2 Nov 02, at 17:07, Louis Proyect wrote:
>
> > Alas, the last thing that anybody can accuse ANSWER/IAC/WWP of is
> surfeit of
> > cleverness. For example, when you blithely refer to ANSWER as independent
> > from IAC and then house both organizations in the same office, it
> creates an
> > opening for a professional red-baiter from the Nation Magazine to hang one
> > of their slanders on. Of course, this is the sort of problem you create for
> > yourself when you are unaccountable. If you were working with people who
> > were not vetted from head to toe by WWP leaders, they might have the
> > gumption to tell you the truth, namely that it is stupid to put two
> > supposedly separate organizations in the same office.
>
> Hey Lou,
>
> Where do you get off calling people stupid without making a trip to 39 W.
> 14th St some Tuesday evening at 7 pm and seeing how the IAC actually
> operates?
>
> You could look at it this way:  the IAC is an organization with members,
> many of whom put it hundreds of hours building Oct. 26, and ANSWER
> is a coalition, whose members are organizations.
>
> You've got a certain model that you think the people doing the organizing
> should follow. Personally, I don't think the anti-war movement that is
> currently in formation is ready to adopt it.  (This doesn't mean I think
> it is
> a model that ever would be worthwhile to adopt.)
>
> Why do you disparage the work that the people who are building the anti-
> war movement on the ground are doing by calling them "stupid"?  Is it
> your way of expressing solidarity?
>
> Anyway, for all its sharpness, this has been a good discussion.
>
> By the way, Oct. 26 must have had a powerful impact -- tonight NPR
> actually retractred its report on Oct. 26, saying that it had erroneously
> reported that less than 10,000 people.


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.