ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/02/85)
First in net.religion, and now in net.politics, you have taken mail that I sent you privately and posted it to the net without my permission. This violates a primary rule of net etiquette. I want to make it public that you have done this, so that others might think twice before sending mail to you. Let's take a look at what you originally said, what I replied, and what you replied in net.religion: >>> I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious >>> beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's >>> still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked. >> I don't think you meant quite what you said. >> Although I do indeed have the right to say what I want, >> I do not have the right to force anyone else to listen, >> nor may I force anyone else to transmit my messages. >> Thus, I do not have the right to have my views "heard and considered," >> and that right is not guaranteed in the Constitution. >> Or did you mean something else? > What chemical is this person on? (There I go, using the tactics of the > opposition.) > I don't believe I have twisted anybody's arm to turn on their terminal > and read my material. And there's no way to force DECWRL to transmit my > material if it doesn't want to. Somebody's a little confused about facts > of life. > But this is just the kind of person that I am opposed to, those who > would crush the opposition, crush free expression, crush free choice. > This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the > match to burn a library. (as usual, your remarks have an odd number of > symbols in front of them; mine have an even number) When you made your first remark, I realized your statement could not be exactly true. In order to have your views heard and considered, there must be someone to listen and consider them. If you say you have the right to have your views heard and considered, you are really saying that you have the right to force someone to listen and consider them. So I pointed out, as politely as I could, that although you do indeed have the constitutionally guaranteed right to say what you please, your rights end there. You do not have the right to be heard, because that conflicts with others' rights not to listen. Your response is absurd. First paragraph: an ad hominem attack. Second paragraph: an irrelevancy. Third paragraph: another ad hominem attack. I point out that no one has the right to force people to listen to them and you angrily protest that you haven't been forcing people. I never said you were. I point out that no one has the right to force others to carry their messages and you angrily protest that you don't force DECWRL to transmit your material. I never said you did. In fact, what I was doing was exactly what you claimed you had the right to force me to do: hearing and considering your views. And, because I did what you say you want, in private, you call me someone who would "crush free expression, crush free choice" in public! Next, I find you did it again in net.politics: > Now how about this goodie: >>> I also believe that anyone, no matter what his political or religious >>> beliefs, has the right to have his views heard and considered. That's >>> still contained in the Constitution, the last time I looked. >> >>I don't think you meant quite what you said. >> >>Although I do indeed have the right to say what I want, >>I do not have the right to force anyone else to listen, >>nor may I force anyone else to transmit my messages. >> >>Thus, I do not have the right to have my views "heard and considered," >>and that right is not guaranteed in the Constitution. >> >>Or did you mean something else? >> >> >> --Andrew Koenig > Andy, your words speak for themselves. You're obviously confused. > I cannot "force" DECWRL to output my submissions. Nor can I "force" >any individual to read them. (Did I twist your arm to turn on you terminal >and read USENET?) I think I already replied to these comments, but it appears that if you are rebutted successfully in one forum, you will just go seek out some other audience that hasn't gotten wise yet. I invite interested readers to draw their own conclusions from this interchange.
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (08/07/85)
[] Normally I dislike long notes with lots of quotations in them. It now seems that I'm going to have to write one in response to the latest note from Don Black (subject net.protocol). Don seems to have misunderstood the order in which I wrote some notes, and because of this to have come to the conclusion that I quoted some personal mail of his without his permission and out of context. This isn't true. So, I'm going to try and reconstruct the sequence of notes and mail messages that lead to this misunderstanding. I quote the relevant section from Don's note (the latest one): > This following material originated as a PERSONAL EXCHANGE between > myself and Mr. Dimitrovski. Normally I don't mind people using such > material in the general net, since normally I give full permission. > > But I do believe it's appropriate to not take things out of context > as Mr. Dimitrovsky has done. > > While we're on the subject, I highly recommend that the net not allow > this to degenerate into a (pardon the expression) "pissing contest." > > So, Isaac, before the entire net, I dare you to submit my reply to > these questions: > [The following quotes come from my note titled More of the Saga, which I wrote on July 31] >>I don't understand, Don. I thought you'd be proud to be called a Nazi. >>Another thing I can't understand is why you're so bland about some >>... [part of my quote omitted for brevity - see my note for the rest] ... >> >>As long as I'm asking you to explain your opinions, I might as well >>add your recent comment to the effect that "Christians should really >>read the Talmud; they'd really get an education." What exactly would >>they find out? Post all the details in net.religion. [Isaac Dimitrovsky] >> >>> Remember how Hitler worked in Germany? First he went for one group, >>> and nobody spoke up. Then he went for another, and nobody spoke up. And >>> so on, until Germany was both levelled and partially enslaved. It can >>> happen here too. So I speak up. [Don Black] >> >> >>I'm truly baffled now, Don. Just what groups do you think Hitler went for? >>Do you think the Nazis were composed of Jews, Gypsys, gays, etc. who >>ganged up on Aryans and put them in concentration camps? Please clarify. [Don now continues in his latest note] > Let's hear it, Isaac. What did I say that you left out? What are >you afraid of admitting that I said? > > If the net wants to see the entire exchange, I will be glad to submit >it. I have nothing to lose. Otherwise, Isaac, "put up or shut up." The conclusion that Don seems to have arrived at is that I quoted the paragraph beginning "Remember how Hitler worked ... " from personal mail that he sent me, taking it out of context from the rest of his mail message. This isn't what happened. I'll give the sequence of events as they happened here, although they may be different in other sites because of the delays between sites. 1. I wrote a short response to a note by J Storrs Hall titled Control-Meta-Guns in which I defended Charles Forsythe who, in effect, had called Don Black a Nazi. I said this was a "perfectly appropriate shot" at Don Black. (The main reason I said this is that in previous postings Don had implied that he thought the Holocaust had not happened). I wrote this response on July 27. 2. I received a mail message from Don Black, who said that the above response was an ad-hominem slur. The substance of this message was about the same as that of the note by Don titled More of the saga, with the addition of a few friendly insults. Both of these messages arrived here on July 30. (I have unfortunately lost track of the mail message - Don, if you have it and wish to post it, feel free to do so). 3. In response to the above two messages, I wrote the note that was quoted above, also titled More of the Saga, on July 31. I also wrote a personal mail message to Don Black. In the note, I only quoted material that was in Don's More of the saga note, as anyone can verify by looking at this note. I did *not* quote material that was in his personal mail message but not in his note. In my mail message I also responded to the friendly insults mentioned above. The only one of these insults I can remember went roughly like this: Don had said that, because of comments like the ones in 1., he always carried a large pistol. I told him to try not to shoot his balls off. (Once again, Don, if you have my mail message feel free to post it). 4. Don Black wrote a reply to my mail message of 3. I received this message on August 3. I believe that this is the reply Don asks me to quote above. As you can see, I did not receive this mail message until after I had written the note that Don quotes above, so I could hardly have quoted out of context from this message in my note. I will reproduce Don's message in full below. 5. Don wrote his note titled net.protocol, which I quoted above. I saw this note on August 6. The mail message from Don that I mention in 4 was very interesting, and has changed my opinion of Don quite a bit. It was well worth a reply, but unfortunately I have had to work on relatively unimportant things like my thesis in addition to the network, so I had not yet gotten around to writing my reply (I fully intend to do so, though). As for what caused Don's misunderstanding, I think either my note mentioned in 3 might not have arrived at his site until after he sent his message in 4, or he might not have realized that the material I quoted in 3 came from his public note in 2, not his personal mail. Anyway, as per Don's request I include his message in 4 in its entirety: >Subject: In reply to your last message. > >Isaac-- > > Normally I don't like to spend too much time answering individual mail, >simply because I have only 8 hours in a day to work and otherwise use the >terminal. But you do deserve some answers. > >>I don't understand, Don. I thought you'd be proud to be called a Nazi. > > A Nazi is a member of the National German Socialist Party, an admirer >of the Little Corporal. I am neither a German or a socialist or otherwise >a follower of Adolph. I am, however, an American Nationalist, to wit, >one who places America first. I abhor socialism of any flavor. > > There are other examples of legitimate national pride. For example, >if I were a Jew, I'm sure I would feel a sense of nationalism toward >Israel. Well, I'm not, I'm an American. > >>Another thing I can't understand is why you're so bland about some >>things. You pussyfoot around saying things like [I'm paraphrasing; >>I don't have the quotes handy, so deny if you feel misquoted] >>"Well, as far whether the Germans gassed Jews, there are pros and cons, >>aren't there?" or "There is an Institute in California which has offered >>a $50,000 reward to anyone who could prove the Germans gassed Jews; so far >>noone has been able to make them pay." > > I'm trying to spare the net of a (pardon the expression) pissing >contest. One would develop very quickly if such subjects were placed in >open discussion. If the net wants to discuss it, fine. I'm game. > > As for the quotes, yeah, OK, close enough. > > You probably realize that there is a controversy raging about the >veracity of the Holocaust story. I want to find out the truth and nothing >more. If it happened, fine. If it didn't, what did happen? Were six >million killed? If so, how did they die? If not, how many did die and >by what means? Who really did control the camps? Who were their superiors? >Are there people still alive and unnamed who might be prosecuted? That's >all I want to know. > > But to do that, I must have the right to dig out the information that I >need. > > I feel that the whole issue is one of free speech and expression. There >are people who claim that nothing happened. They offer evidence that the >Camps were not in fact Death Camps. In this country, we have the right >to freedom of the press, expression, association, and speech. Which means >that you may say as you please, and I have the right to rebut it. It >doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, the fact is we both have >the right to tell our sides. Period. > > I would think that the Jewish community would welcome a forensic >investigation of the Camp sites, and an open discussion of the material. >But in the Ernst Zundel trial, the Jewish community (the ADL, I believe), >asked the Canadian Prosecutor to drop the case, to avoid the publicity. >And in the recent Mel Mermelstein lawsuit, the judge threw out most >of the complaint and forced the plaintiff to settle out of court. >So now I have to ask "What are they trying to hide?" > >>Why not just say what you think? i.e. "I don't think the Germans >>gassed Jews; the Holocaust is a hoax." > > I did, on net.religion. Ask Rich Rosen, he'll tell you. > > Obviously, SOMETHING did happen. Camps did exist, people did die. >It's not a popular position to claim otherwise. > >>Come to think of it, why haven't >>you ever said exactly what *you* want to do about the Jews? > > Because I have never really thought about it. My basic philosophy is >to live and let live. Just because I don't particularly like a group of >people doesn't necessarily mean that I want to "do something about them." >I don't begrudge anybody a home, a family, a job, or a front seat on the >bus. But that doesn't say that I have to socialize with them, allow >them in my house, or let my daughter marry one. > > (Besides, who would believe a "Nazi" anyways?) > >>The closest >>thing I can remember is when someone asked if Jews were the Antichrist >>and you answered "Well, if the shoe fits ..." Come on, Don, you can do >>better than that. > > I did. You apparently missed it. I had a whole series on net.religion >on Christian Identity. Unfortunately, the discussion got out of hand. The >Ad Hominems were so bad that my terminal melted. And I'll give you one >guess which group was the worst. > > That particular individual and I had a long, private exchange of MAIL. >We found that we basically agreed on many subjects. > >>What should be done about the Antichrist? > > I don't have to worry about that. It'll all get done in due time. >The harlot Mystery Babylon the Great will get hers in the neck. You >might want to read the Book of Revelation for more detail. I just have >to sit and occupy His Promised Land until He comes again in glory. > >>What would >>you do if someone made you President tomorrow? > > Hire a bunch of Mafia as bodyguards. The last guy that bucked the >Eastern Establishment went to Dallas and got shot. > >>As long as I'm asking you to explain your opinions, I might as well >>add your recent comment to the effect that "Christians should really >>read the Talmud; they'd really get an education." What exactly would >>they find out? Post all the details in net.religion. > > Thanks, no. I'll let the other occupants of net.religion post the details. >And take the resulting flak. > > Honestly, I have not been able to find an English translation of the >Talmud. Unfortunately, the only information I have on it is what has been >published in so-called "hate literature." What I've read there nauseates >me. > > I have two choices. I can believe what I have read, or I can find out >the truth. I cannot find out the truth without reading the book. If I read >the book, I can find out one of two things. If the Hate Literature is correct >then I am justified in my criticism of Judaism. If the Literature is wrong, >then I owe people an apology. There might be great philosophy in the Talmud, >but, unless I can read it myself, how can I judge? I asked a book dealer >a year ago to find me one. I'm still waiting. > > I've noticed that many people get all bent out of shape whenever I say >anything on the net about Christians reading the Talmud. I would think that >if there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian ethic and heritage, then maybe >Christians should be reading it. If it were really the great book that every- >body says it is, then Christians might be more tolerant of Jews, right? > >>>Which is why I carry a big pistol. >> >>Try not to shoot yourself in the balls, ok? > > I wouldn't feel it. They're very large, and made of brass. Besides, >.45-ACP bullets are expensive. > > (I have to hand it to the Israelis. I just bought a thousand rounds >of Israeli Military Industries M-193 5.56-mm Ball FMJ ammo for $162.50, >that's 16.25 cents a round. I can't even reload my own for that price.) > > So have a good weekend, in any event. I'll be glad to answer any further >questions. > >--Don Black Isaac Dimitrovsky allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1) 251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 ... Hernandez steps in to face ... Orl ... HERchiiiser ... and it's a liiine driive, deeeeep to the gap in left center ... - Bob Murphy, Voice of the Mets
nrh@inmet.UUCP (08/08/85)
>/* Written 7:19 pm Aug 6, 1985 by csd2!dimitrov in inmet:net.politics */ >>>As long as I'm asking you to explain your opinions, I might as well >>>add your recent comment to the effect that "Christians should really >>>read the Talmud; they'd really get an education." What exactly would >>>they find out? Post all the details in net.religion. >> >> Thanks, no. I'll let the other occupants of net.religion post the details. >>And take the resulting flak. >> >> Honestly, I have not been able to find an English translation of the >>Talmud. Unfortunately, the only information I have on it is what has been >>published in so-called "hate literature." What I've read there nauseates >>me. >> >> I have two choices. I can believe what I have read, or I can find out >>the truth. I cannot find out the truth without reading the book. If I read >>the book, I can find out one of two things. If the Hate Literature is correct >>then I am justified in my criticism of Judaism. If the Literature is wrong, >>then I owe people an apology. There might be great philosophy in the Talmud, >>but, unless I can read it myself, how can I judge? I asked a book dealer >>a year ago to find me one. I'm still waiting. >> >> I've noticed that many people get all bent out of shape whenever I say >>anything on the net about Christians reading the Talmud. I would think that >>if there is such a thing as a Judeo-Christian ethic and heritage, then maybe >>Christians should be reading it. If it were really the great book that every- >>body says it is, then Christians might be more tolerant of Jews, right? As a public service (who says Libertaria would be under-supplied with public goods?): I called the folks at the Boston Public Library and asked if they had such a book. Indeed, they did. One reference: "The Talmud with English Translation and Commentary" Ed. by A. Ehrman, Jerusalem, El-'am 1965. The catalog folks said that it's in the research library, so you have to read it there. What's that? You want to BUY a copy of the Talmud? No problem. Page 217 of the Boston Yellow Pages has an ad for the "Israel Book Store". They carry the Soncino Talmud, in English, all 18 volumes for $275 (yes, it's in stock). By the way, neither at the library nor the bookstore did anyone appear to get "bent out of shape" by my question. So let's not hear any implications that the Talmud is tough to find, and that therefore you can't check the Hate Literature. It took me 30 minutes or so to get this info (most of it on "Hold" at the library).