mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (10/03/85)
>>>>"Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest. Obviously my Aryan >>>>race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems. >>>>(An example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of >>>>science"?) The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get >>>>rid of the Jews!" Let's get serious, really. [Rich] >>> Well, you for one are not so pure. [Charles] In my monthly act of stupidity I totally missed the parallelism in language between the two passages. What I am calling into question is not racial purity at all, but moral purity. To put it simply, I don't believe Rich is so free of the will to pursecute as he would believe. Fortunately, his power over me and my kind is limited to defamation over the net, so that I don't have to find out the truth of the matter. But the essential hatred that seems to back up his statements makes me wonder. >>It is because of foul crap like this that it is likely you will not see me >>respond to the obnoxious Wingate in the future. Fine. >>[T]he "horrors" that Gary Smith spoke of come not from science but from >>application of scientific facts by people who add in other bogus >>assumptions, such as the one I described. And my point, obscure as it was, was that Rich should not presume himself to be free of such influences. >> I take Charles' silence (outside >>of his stupid remark--is he saying I'm not pure because I'm Jewish, reliving >>his anti-Semitic remarks of the past?---hard to tell WHAT it is he means) to >>mean that he has nothing constructive to say about that issue. I am forced >>to interpret that silence as concurrence. I not that Wingate is often >>silent (again, with the exception of some snotty remark) after I and others >>say things he seems to have no answer for. [Warning: heavy flaming ahead] Rich has never caught on to the fact that the net is an imperfect medium. I am not at all sure why I have not previously responded to this typical attack from Rich previously. I do not remember reading this article, perhaps because it never arrived here. Or perhaps I skipped over this section because of boredom with Rich's tedious and repetitious attacks upon my character. Rich at least could do me the service of coming up with a few new insults once in a while. As it is, he rants and raves with the same religious fervor and the same unchanging cant as the local fundamentalist on the library mall. His victory over the evil devil-God worshippers is always complete; I have never ever recalled him recanting a position or conceding a point (or for that matter, ever expressing doubt on an issue). If he really intends to make good on his promise to ignore my postings, I for one will be relieved; I will then have every reason to put his name in my kill files, no longer having to wonder what defamation he has spewed forth this day. Here endeth the flame. I think this exhausts what I have to say on the subject, so don't expect any replies. Charley Wingate
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/10/85)
>>>>>"Hmmm, Darwinism talks about survival of the fittest. Obviously my Aryan >>>>>race is superior and more fit than those Jews, who cause all our problems. >>>>>(An example of a proven scientific fact that introduced a "horror of >>>>>science"?) The obvious thing to do is to purify the Aryan race and get >>>>>rid of the Jews!" Let's get serious, really. [Rich] >>>> Well, you for one are not so pure. [Charles] > In my monthly act of stupidity I totally missed the parallelism in language > between the two passages. What I am calling into question is not racial > purity at all, but moral purity. [CHARLES] Charles, your excusemaking has reached an all time low. No, THIS time you didn't mean your "monthly" (or at least regular) evincing of anti-Semitic feelling in some form or other, what you REALLY meant was simply to insult my "moral purity". I guess being an anti-Semite is so many degrees worse than insulting the moral purity of a single human being (on what basis, is beyond me) that you would rather be perceived as the latter. How very quaint. > To put it simply, I don't believe Rich is > so free of the will to pursecute as he would believe. Fortunately, his > power over me and my kind is limited to defamation over the net, so that I > don't have to find out the truth of the matter. But the essential hatred > that seems to back up his statements makes me wonder. Equally quaint is your vacuous assertion about my "hatred". If there is anything I hate, it is the desire of people to impose their will onto me, restricting my personal freedom because they might not like my position, or my action, or my beliefs, or my tastes. You have truly bottomed out here, in what is clearly the real act of defamation, and perhaps libel. >>>It is because of foul crap like this that it is likely you will not see me >>>respond to the obnoxious Wingate in the future. >>>[T]he "horrors" that Gary Smith spoke of come not from science but from >>>application of scientific facts by people who add in other bogus >>>assumptions, such as the one I described. > And my point, obscure as it was, was that Rich should not presume himself to > be free of such influences. While *you* should be? I don't understand this at all. Clearly from your very line of thinking (as documented in your articles about many subjects) you don't see the need to even BEGIN to rid yourself of such influences. I have reasons for distaste for the philosophies I find repugnant. But I never propose restricting their (your) freedom. In fact, I find it just fine for everyone to have freedom of speech so that the non-substantive ideas can be shown as such. Problem is, it seems many people who hold such philosophies know that their ideas cannot stand up, so they engage in emotional manipulation of various kinds. I think that speaks for itself. >>> I take Charles' silence (outside of his stupid >>>remark--is he saying I'm not pure because I'm Jewish, reliving his >>>anti-Semitic remarks of the past?---hard to tell WHAT it is he means) to >>>mean that he has nothing constructive to say about that issue. I am forced >>>to interpret that silence as concurrence. I not that Wingate is often >>>silent (again, with the exception of some snotty remark) after I and others >>>say things he seems to have no answer for. > Rich has never caught on to the fact that the net is an imperfect medium. I > am not at all sure why I have not previously responded to this typical > attack from Rich previously. I do not remember reading this article, > perhaps because it never arrived here. Or perhaps I skipped over this > section because of boredom with Rich's tedious and repetitious attacks upon > my character. Rich at least could do me the service of coming up with a few > new insults once in a while. As it is, he rants and raves with the same > religious fervor and the same unchanging cant as the local fundamentalist on > the library mall. His victory over the evil devil-God worshippers is always > complete; I have never ever recalled him recanting a position or conceding a > point (or for that matter, ever expressing doubt on an issue). Gee, Chuckles, I would if you said something that debunked something I said, or showed flaws in my premises. Instead, you just go back and add your own premises, or make new assertions, or ... You have written your own attacks on your own character. They stand in and of themselves, quite well. Your dissociation from those "horrible" fundamentalists whilst supporting victimization of young children through proselytizing, insulting as many groups as possible, ... it's not worth going on, since doing so would only make me look like the ranter you have become when it comes to me. > If he really intends to make good on his promise to ignore my postings, I > for one will be relieved; Relieved of the knowledge that you might have to defend the assertions you make at every turn? I would hope others would note and log such things emanating from you and treat them accordingly. > I will then have every reason to put his name in my kill files, no > longer having to wonder what defamation he has spewed forth this day. It's interesting to note that Charles merely asserts that there exists defamation, when in fact nothing I have said is not verifiable fact about things he has said. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr