On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 06:45:07 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
<> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 06:31:17 +0000, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:59:10 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 15:39:55 +0000, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:31:28 +0000 (UTC), Wingnut
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why on earth would I do that?
>>>>>
>>>>>To back up your claims with actual evidence, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>You see, I'm calling your bluff. You claimed that some presumably
>>>>>well- known spy was some other spy's son,
>>>>
>>>> Do you know what the well-known spies have in common? They got
>>>> exposed.
>>>
>>>Or they retired, the war ended, they died, etc. and after a while their
>>>exploits were declassified.
>>
>> Really. Who has that happened to?
>
>http://lmgtfy.com/?q=famous+spies
That's a list that would include many people who were exposed and
disgraced.
>
>>>> On some level they failed. Failures are much less likely to leave a
>>>> legacy to follow.
>>>
>>>Mata Hari was a failure?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>I think lots of people would disagree.
Those people are all wrong. Mata Hari was a small time informant who
was arrested and executed, notable only for having also been a
high-profile entertainer.