🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jul10.164851.9609@pbhya.PacBell.COM> whheydt@PacBell.COM
(Wilson Heydt) writes:
>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.

Few weapons are sentient.  It's fatuous to describe the
weapon itself, rather than its use, as "indiscriminate".
A small shrapnel bomb inside a vehicle targets the 
vehicle's occupants very precisely.

>That EF has tended to go after classes.  'Spiking' to prevent logging
>is hardly targeting a specific individual.

That doesn't make it indiscriminate.  It targets a very
specific behavior.

>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.

But well-directed.  Accepting (which I don't) that centralized
power generation is a crime against Nature, the ratepayers
are complicit in the crime.  The intent is that the facilities
not be replaced using the same sort of technology.  Ratepayers
would presumably benefit by replacing power lines with
energy conservation and non-polluting, non-extractive
resources, so it's fair that they should pay.

>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.)

The premise that the cited EarthFirst! actions were
indiscriminate is false.  The premise that bombs are only
used in indiscriminate ways is false.  I don't see the
logical link between the two sorts of activities.
--

    Chuck Karish          karish@mindcraft.com
    (415) 323-9000 x117   karish@forel.stanford.edu