ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/01/85)
>>>"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????] >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. Doubtless he will call this >a "victory". Good for him. Notice that his "victory" consisted of his not >in any way responding to what I said in the previous paragraph. That the >"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. 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] As a person who has frequently clashed with Rich Rosen in this forum, I FIRMLY SUPPORT RICH'S INSISTENCE THAT ANTI-SEMITIC REMARKS HAVE NO PLACE IN NET.PHILOSOPHY -- OR ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. In Charles' defense, his original remark is quite ambiguous -- furthermore, I have never had any reason to doubt his honor or good will towards all humans, regardless of cultural or ancestral backgrounds. The problem here is that regardless of Charles' intent, his philosophically empty remark is liable to the vilest misinterpretation (unlike the innocuous silliness of Rosenisms like "You betchum Red Rider"). We must not unknowingly encourage future propaganda from members of hate groups. I respectfully urge Charles to clarify his potentially dangerous remark. -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/02/85)
>>>>"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????] >>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. Doubtless he will call this >>a "victory". Good for him. Notice that his "victory" consisted of his not >>in any way responding to what I said in the previous paragraph. 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. [Rich] > As a person who has frequently clashed with Rich Rosen in this forum, > I FIRMLY SUPPORT RICH'S INSISTENCE THAT ANTI-SEMITIC REMARKS HAVE NO > PLACE IN NET.PHILOSOPHY -- OR ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER. > In Charles' defense, his original remark is quite ambiguous -- > furthermore, I have never had any reason to doubt his honor or > good will towards all humans, regardless of cultural or ancestral > backgrounds. [Ellis] Perhaps you've forgotten Charles' previous forays into anti-Semitism, for example, his remarks in net.news.group that a good way to test the netnews "Distribution" feature might be to send "Jew-baiting articles to net.religion.jewish". Note, though, that I agree that this remark was unclear. In some contexts, some people are deliberately unclear so that their "position" or "opinion" can never be dissected, since whatever you say can be deemed a "misinterpretation". > The problem here is that regardless of Charles' intent, his > philosophically empty remark is liable to the vilest misinterpretation > (unlike the innocuous silliness of Rosenisms like "You betchum Red > Rider"). We must not unknowingly encourage future propaganda from > members of hate groups. Thank you, Michael, for acknowledging the difference between innocuous silliness (I suppose "praise Nihil" poems fit into that category, too) and vile invective. I wish you had been able to acknowledge the difference in previous encounters when I uttered innocuous remarks (remarks either just straightforwardly iterative or trivial) that were interpreted as insults by you and others. > I respectfully urge Charles to clarify his potentially dangerous remark. I wouldn't waste my time doing that. But certainly someone should ask. Again, thank you, Michael. But do note how dangerously close you have come to the line that Charles has crossed in your own postings. I've always said that I expect better than that from you. Unfortunately, my expectations about Charles are another story at this stage. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr