Maybe I wasn't clear in my post. There was not a controversy about the specific claims Jeffrey St. Clair made to me in his emails. They do not exist, as far as I know, anywhere outside St. Clair's emails to me. St. Clair simply made up these claims from nowhere; they were not in Marsh's article, or in Gordon's book. When challenged to produce any evidence at all for them, he ignored the challenge and changed the subject. I'm not just calling him names. He was pretty clearly lying to me just because he wanted to prove what a bastard Lomax was.

I suspect I knew Lomax better than you, GUEST, and I know he was no saint and could piss people off. But St. Clair was way out of line. If he's willing to just make stuff up to prove his point, why should I trust any of the facts he cites in his articles on politics?

And finally, GUEST, dragging the discourse into the gutter? You had already taken it there long before with your own name-calling. you are constantly accusing people YOU disagree with of being despicable, cowardly, afraid, etc, etc, etc. You accused ME of blinding hatred of Ralph Nader on another thread, which is a laugh. You've accused me of all kinds of things in fact, most of which are not true.

When someone lies to my face ("Lomax didn't even mention John Work once in The Land Where the Blues Began") and I say they are lying, am I really just name-calling? If that's the case, what SHOULD I say?

How about "Thank you, GUEST, may I have another?"