No! Absolutely not. What I really meant to say was this...

I realize that everyone is entitled to his opinion, and I respect this. I also hope that you will all respect mine as you read this letter. To get immediately to the point, if Spaw wants to be taken seriously, he should counter the arguments in this letter with facts, not illogical panaceas, personal anecdotes, or insults. Common-sense understanding of human nature tells us that he spouts the same bile in everything he writes, making only slight modifications to suit the issue at hand. The issue he's excited about this week is McCarthyism, which says to me that it is easy to see faults in others. But it takes perseverance to establish democracy and equality. Spaw has -- not once, but several times -- been able to incite an atmosphere of violence and endangerment toward the good men, women, and children of this state without anyone stopping him. How long can that go on? As long as his cocky slogans are kept on life support. That's why we have to pull the plug on them and go placidly amid the noise and haste.

We must expose his jeremiads for what they really are. Only then can a society free of his sententious ultimata blossom forth from the roots of the past. And only then will people come to understand that if one believes statements like, "Revanchism is the key to world peace," one is, in effect, supporting subversive brazen-types. Spaw's sycophants accept his brown-nosing outbursts without question. To be more pedantic about it, I welcome Spaw's comments. However, Spaw needs to realize that if we don't soon tell him to stop what he's doing, he will proceed with his unstable, hypocritical dissertations, considerably emboldened by our lack of resistance. We will have tacitly given him our permission to do so.

The hate just keeps on coming. Of course, it's not that simple. It has been said that Spaw's habitués believe that those rights and protections which give us voice in a democratic society are the cause of feudalism and social chaos and must be thwarted or dismantled. That makes sense to me. I believe it's true. But it unmistakably implies that we must give Spaw condign punishment. If we fail in this, we are not failing someone else; we are not disrupting some interest separate from ourselves. Rather, it is we who suffer when we neglect to observe that Spaw's stories about Marxism are particularly ridden with errors and distortions, even leaving aside the concept's initial implausibility. After having read this, you may think that we must, in one voice, cry out that we will not tolerate Spaw's slatternly disquisitions. Nevertheless, you should always remember that I'm not going to respond to his ethics beyond saying that I have avoided engaging in open debate with cruel, loud yokels -- or even acknowledging their existence -- for fear of lending them any form of legitimacy.

- LH (got a lot of time on my hands tonight... *G*)