From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 02:07:59 MDT
[I know its bad form to follow up ones own posts
but I just had a deliciously mischievous thought
do any extropes what to *be* the US President? ;-) ]
> Ramez Naam writes:
>
> > From: Lee Corbin [mailto:lcorbin@tsoft.com]
> > > The question is, how accurate is his worry that by
> > > "playing along" with the system for two more years,
> > > he will compromise his own resistance?
> >
> > Surely this is a judgment call based on the strength of
> > conviction of the individual and just how large the gap
> > is between his beliefs and the beliefs he would pretend
> > at.
> >
> > I think a good place to search for past examples of this
> > is in espionage. What little I know of the field leads me
> > to believe that a great many spies have been in "deep
> > cover" for years at a time without switching allegiances.
> > Or at least, that's how it is in the spy movies and books.
> > :)
>
> Good point. There was a recent mini-series here in OZ
> based on the Cambridge spies, Burgess, Philby, McLean (?)
> and I forget the last. Point is though that this was not
> *just* fiction. These guys were in deep cover and managed
> to get to the highest levels of influence.
>
> Perhaps significantly though there were four of them
> in allegiance, they did not have to keep a secret alone.
> At least periodically they could get together and share
> some angst and reassure each other that all was for the
> greater good (as they saw it). And also significantly
> when one of then fell the others were well aware that
> all of them would almost certainly fall quickly afterwards.
>
> - Brett
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jul 25 2003 - 02:13:15 MDT