Re: Hallam-Baker is willing to testify

["Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>]

null@myemail.net wrote in article <5i3vrt$aad@life.ai.mit.edu>...
> 
> Hallam-Baker, pissing all over his own train of logic, wrote:

> > I will not only refuse to support Bell, I'll testify against him in
> > court if asked.
> 
>   What are you going to testify to?

He sent me a considerable amount of material in private email. 

Anonynous insults do not impress me.


>   To Bell's scheme not being a threat to anybody because it would
> never work?  That it is nothing more than a theoretical exercise
> which does not present a danger to a single soul? 

I don't think it was a theoretical exercise. I think Jim scrambled his
brain with a dodgy dose of amphetamines or similar. His posts sounded
to me like the work of someone with a personality disorder who was
working his way up to psychopath.

>That it is 
> preposterous of the government to prosecute someone on the basis
> of a pie-in-the-sky, preposterous idea?

It may sound loony to you but I have no doubt that Jim believed
what he wrote and intended others to act on it. I'm not sure that 
he acted on it himself but I would not be at all suprised.


	Phill