🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2A5CC116.26641@noiro.acs.uci.edu> mrichey@mothra.nts.uci.edu (Mike Richey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul9.170051.1278@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) writes:
>>A small addendum to my own remarks . . .
>>
>>A bomb is a very indiscriminate weapon.  In that sense, it is a
>>consistent escalation of prior EF activity (that of targeting classes
>>rather than individuals) than of EFs opponents.
>
>Again, more assumptions.

What, pray tell do you think I am assuming?

That bombs are relatively indiscriminate weapons?  They sure don't
'care' *who* is nearby when they go off and they'll get everyone
within their radius of action.

That EF has tended to go after classes.  'Spiking' to prevent logging
is hardly targeting a specific individual.  Destroying a transmission
tower has potential effects on every user tied to that line and the
cost of replacement will (ultimately) be born by the rate-payers of
the utility that owned it, or the taxpayers if it's publically owned.
Nothing very specifc there.

What of EF's opponents?  Charges are filed against *individuals* where
there is evidence of criminal activity.  perhaps you've heard of suits
filed against EF members collectively or the organization as a whole
(I haven't, plus, as I recall no one seems to know very much about who
*is* an 'EF member').

Perhaps you mean that I'm assuming that the explosion in question
really was a bomb . . .  Is there any particular doubt on that point?
(I'm *not* assuming that anyone in particular built/placed the device,
just pointing that there is logic and consistentcy in it being 'owned'
by EF folks.)

	--Hal
-- 
Hal Heydt                    |    "Boycott Time-Warner"
Analyst, Pacific*Bell        |         --J. Danforth Quayle
510-823-5447                 |    "... kill all the lawyers."
whheydt@pbhya.PacBell.COM    |         --William Shakespeare