Spy versus Spy: a Response to Criticism of "Pacifism, BTW"
3
Spy versus Spy: (A Response to Criticism of “Pacifism, BTW”) by Zevi I’d like to publish the little note below because it is a great example of things I could have made clearer in something I published called “That’s Pacifism; not spelled ‘t-e-r-r-’ btw” or something like that. I’m working from the assumption that if one person says it, three people thought it, and not only that but this note expresses criticisms that other people have stated more-or-less, and does so clearly and gracefully: [Dear Jimterror-bombinatorN’t], greetings. i don't have much time- gotta get to work this morning. a couple of things.. i wrote XXXXXX and tried to explain to her her wrong in the matter between you two. but in fairness i think i should say that you are wrong about her relationship with ron loomis. i know fora fact that they have been good friends for quite a while and that is totally separate from the fact that he works with cults. her communication with him has nothing to do with cults. so that was a slander. andalso, how can you possibly justify hacking into her email and proclaim it so publicly without shame? that is a crime that you could get in a lot of trouble for. she was wrong to be speaking about you when you were showing her kindness, but that could never justify doing what you did and then tellingeveryone you did it. i hope you two can repent to each other and make things right. have a blessed day, [XXXXX]I thank you for speaking with so-and-so. You didn’t have to do that, but thank you. I understand that a busy schedule can make careful reading difficult, but it appears to me that on a number ofcounts you have found things in the publication that are simply not there. I fail to see how anything that I stated about so-and-so’s relationship to Ron Loomis was inaccurate, especially seeing that you re-state half of what I said in your very own note. In the publication the only thing I am aware ofmentioning about their “relationship” was that she was “secret best friends” with him, and that they were in semi- daily communication. Perhaps you were aware of this relationship, but I was not, and when I inquired as to whom she needed to communicate with so frequently, she was evasive, and didn’t tell me. She kept the persons identity a secret from ME. Maybe saying that they were “best” friends is an exaggeration; I take responsibility if that is untrue. You do not say this, but several other people have let on that I accuse s&s of being a “spy” in the publication. Afterre-reading the publication a few times, I can’t find that accusation anywhere. However, the facts of the situation do lend themselves in that direction. Let me give you a hypothetical fictitious scenario by way o f illustration. Say, you had an old friend that lived in Micronesia. You visited that friend, who also happened to work for the government of Micronesia. While you were there, you were trusted with proximity to government information, and took pretty much free reign in the office of your friend. You fished around their room, read private things on theirdesk, etc. Meanwhile, you also had a much closer relationship with a high ranking official in the KGB, and told them things (whether true or not) that had a compromising effect on the national security of that small, insignificant country. Wouldn’t any self-respecting country try you for espionage? You might not have been spying on p urpose; you might have just made observations about one friend (however unsound), and re-stated it to another friend because you were friends. Generally speaking, that’s a common practice among friends. But because The Soviet Union has a nuclear arsenal and Micronesia only has plastic air-pistols, giving the Rooskies the false impression that
Spy versus Spy: a Response to Criticism of "Pacifism, BTW"
