Dear Larry,
I note how you have wisely chosen not to (again) waste our time claiming that your letters do not constitute a vendetta against me. I guess we're making some progress at last.
Regarding your never-ending litany of inane letters (the latest, a vignette, is shown below) and the things you support with those letters, and have supported for decades -- namely, NASA's dangerous and deadly plutonium launches, yes, indeed -- terrorist is the right word. You are a terrorist. You refuse numerous and reasonable attempts at debate while claiming to be an expert in the subject, you come out and attack with what you believe to be impunity (we'll see), you throw your verbal bombs randomly (many of your insults have been laughably wide of the mark), and you support the killing of random people around the world -- especially babies (who are at least 10 times more susceptible to radiation damage than adults are).
A terrorist indeed. I suggest you put it in bold letters in your resume so it cannot be missed. (If anyone has any questions, let them read our correspondence, and you might also suggest they visit my Stop Cassini web site and learn about the issues. They sure aren't going to be able to learn them from you! There are plenty of academic resources I've referenced and so have others, which show, when taking all the facts together, the dangers of your ways. So anyone, having been alerted to your altar-ego (you worship the Demon Hot Atom), and having studied all that information, I think most people would be able to decide for themselves whether it's your actions, supporting nuclear missions in space, or mine, opposing those missions and supporting technological advances of a more benign nature, such things as the development of sustainable clean energy solutions, computer technology, and things like that instead -- let them decide if your thinly veiled claims that I am a terrorist, or my simply stating that you are, is the more accurate claim.
If no one else has used that word to describe you, that's just too bad. Presumably then, either your attacks against me are unique in your history of otherwise comparatively decent behavior (frankly I find that unlikely), or else no one else ever had the guts to stand up to your sick innuendos and weak claims as I chose to do. If that be true, so be it. I once again challenge you to debate the issues like an adult, Larry, instead of acting like a sniveling scoundrel who is afraid of facing truth. I'm ready for any logical argument you might come up with. Instead all you've ever done is try to defame me, while supporting the around-the-world MURDER OF INNOCENTS.
What amount of plutonium 238 constitutes a "lethal dose", in your opinion, and what happens when one million people each receive, on average, one millionth of a "lethal dose"? Those questions are the starting point of earnest debate about the dangers of PKE. The fact is, you still haven't laid out for anyone to see (and debate), exactly what your support of PKE is based on. These questions are designed to try to uncover your logic. Surely you have, in your own mind, logical reasons for supporting PKE! Let's see you try to present them! But instead, you snivel and whine about some insult or other, whilst all along insulting twice as viciously yourself. You called me the moral equivalent of a terrorist in your very first letter, and a good many other things besides. So don't bother getting all bent out of shape about such words -- you've had them coming since then, and you've earned them. So live with it.
The Nuclear Mafia is indeed a terrorist organization and you are clearly a proud leader of that organization. The exact same laws that are used to reign in the Mafia will be used to reign in the Nuclear Mafia some day as well. And your letters constitute a fine example of the tactics used by that Mafia to attempt to defame and destroy honest Americans seeking to find and then present the truth about these matters. I've done my research and presented what I believe are irrefutable findings. You're task, if you are earnest about your defamatory claims that I lie to people, is to prove where I have done so. At least point out the specific mistruths!
Unlike my comments about you, which I remind you have all followed your accusations of an astoundingly vicious nature -- unlike my comments, your insults against me have been totally undeserved! Even if I am completely wrong, my insistence that NASA space missions be conducted in a safe manner would do little to slow science, it would only change its direction a little bit at most, for I'm not calling for any slowdown in space research funding, only a more careful consideration of its direction. You on the other hand, have supported, if you add it all up, hundreds of pounds worth of plutonium launches in aggregate, a number of which have failed in one way or another, resulting in global dispersals of enormous quantities of plutonium to the environment. That's already happened and you cheer for it! I hear you cheering, but those that die cannot identify their killers.
You are a terrorist indeed, and have thrown scores of bombs of the worst substance on Earth, and are preparing to throw many more. You're a very conniving man, Larry Evans, and your attacks have been calculated to do as much harm as possible to my reputation without risking the presentation of a single actual, solid, verifiable fact to support your claims. So be sure to also add that to your resume, "Spin Doctor and Propagandist" too.
Such people are much needed by our Government to keep the nuclear dream of "Atoms for Peace" and "Too Cheap to Meter" alive.
And again I ask: Let's see that resume you claim to be updating! Who (besides other members of the nuclear Mafia) has ever hired you? You act like you think you know a lot. Let's see where you learned it, since you won't actually divulge the knowledge you claim to have.
And I strongly advise you actually look up the definition of a terrorist before you discard it. No need to take my word for it. Those who support the randomly killing of innocent people -- those who support NASA's plutonium releases -- are terrorists. Such callous actions fit perfectly with just about any definition of "terrorist" I've ever seen.
When such actions are coupled by unscientific assertions such as you've made, vicious and unwarranted condemnations of your opponents as is your style, and rabid defamation, as is your mandate (in your time-and-space-warped mind), there are few words left to describe your inhumanity.
When an accident happens, where do you think the plutonium goes, Larry?
All those missions, all those failures, and were it not for some opposition voices, willing to put up even with the likes of you, there would undoubtedly be many MORE plutonium launches -- and failures and dispersals. How many more launches would you like, Larry? 10 times more? 100 times more? If several hundred pounds launched (and dozens already lost) is not enough to bother you, where has your scientific and analytical brain actually set the limit?
How about a Cassini-sized launch of plutonium (400,000) Curies every week? Would that bother you? If not, why not? How about one every day? Every hour? I have publicly agreed with Kai Petzke's suggestion of a limit beyond which launches should not be permitted -- .001 Curies. That is a far cry from 400,000 Curies such as Cassini had, but it would permit its use when absolutely vital for some scientific purpose. Others who oppose these launches suggest a limit of zero Curies, which some see as a big difference (obviously I do) and others don't.
But where is YOUR limit, terrorist Evans? If not 400,000 Curies, then would 4,000,000 Curies be scary to you? 40,000,000 Curies, using of course, the failure rates that have been pretty much continuous in NASA's history -- in other words, not assuming that ever mission will succeed, such as you clearly do in fact assume. What would your limit be if the reality was that at the time of SNAP-9A, we had launched far more missions and had far more failures than we did? The world is describable by numerical representations of complex concepts. If you express your opinions with some numbers to back them up, then we can move forward in the debate. What if SNAP-9A had had 21 lbs of plutonium on board instead of 2.1 pounds. Would that have bothered you? 210 lbs? A ton of plutonium? What if, with its ton of plutonium, it had dispersed its load over New York City? What if a terrorist had done that instead of the United States Government?
Well, I think most people would call ANYONE who would risk that a terrorist. And considering that millions of a gram is a lethal dose, I think clearly, there as is much difference between dispersing a ton of plutonium as 2 pounds of plutonium, as there is between killing, with high-speed lead, say, 2 people versus 2 thousand people. Or 2 thousand versus 2 million. The first one killed set the tone. The others only set the pace.
Perhaps there are even better words to describe you, Larry, but for now, I think "terrorist" will have to do.
My understanding is that the American Government does not deal with terrorists so any further correspondence from you will probably be ignored, on the theory that what's best for Uncle Sam is probably best for me too.
To your credit, you have the distinction of being a boring terrorist, something not easily achieved.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
At 04:23 AM 10/28/00 -0400, you wrote:
Mr. Hoffman,
Gee, that's the first time I've been called a terrorist. I'll be sure to add that to my resume.
Toodles,
LE
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com