On Jan 8, 3:12*pm, David wrote:
D Peter Maus wrote:
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

* There is no risk in leaving the fight behind.
I would get a good chuckle out of finding out how you think I could
have remained, given I was escorted to the airport; the intent was
to silence the radio stations by nationalization, not to silence me
personally.

* * How you would have stayed is not the question. You claim to have
been a defender of democracy. The question is, as a defender, how you
would risk life and property by leaving.

I did not leave, I was sent out of the country, by an armed escort. I
risked life and property, lost all my property and barely kept my life.
* * Changing the subject is another charming debate tactic designed
to get you out of clarifying a statement that makes no sense.

* * Once again, making my point for me.

You made no point. "Left the country" sounds voluntary. Removed at
gunpoint is the reality of the matter.

* Yes, I did make a point. Whether you left voluntarily, or you were
removed at gun point, is a semantic matter-- the point is that you did
not stay and fight. The conflict remained in your absense. You did
nothing to defend democracy, because you didn't participate in the
fight. You did not risk life and property by leaving the fight behind you.

* Whether there was personal risk or loss is one thing. Whether you
risked, or lost defending democracy is something else.

* Chauncey, your stories, and supporting evidence on your website,
change with the telling.

* Doroteo Arámbula you are not.

I suggest you check-out "Shock Doctrine" *by Naomi Klein (Canadian, not
dead). *You either fled or you were disappeared.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My guess: He fled *after* his attempts to *collaborate* with the junta
failed.