harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (07/08/85)
Reply to L. Frith, replying to R. Rosen, concerning whether
Frith's remarks are anti-Jewish: Frith replies to Rosen's
mention of my opinion agreeing with his own criticism.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Reply to Rich Rosen (beating dead Ethiopian horses)...
Message-ID: <1031@trwatf.UUCP>
Date: 6 Jul 85 15:32:37 GMT
Date-Received: 6 Jul 85 22:35:24 GMT
Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith)
Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA.
...
Besides, considering the many dissagreements that David Harwood and I
have had in the past, I'm not surprised that he would make such a
comment. But then David Harwood has misinterpreted MANY statements
made by people (Mike Huybensz and others). Calling me "dishonest" and
"cowardly" and additionally labeling what I've said as "scurrilous,"
without substantiation or attempt at Christian-style communication
doesn't strike me as the attitude of a "fine Christian" anyway.
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would rather that Rich had not introduced my opinion
into his exchange with you, although I largely agree with him
concerning your remarks about Jews. But I doubt that anyone can
lash you or anyone else into repentance, although we should make
clear what is wrong.
I said before that it is my opinion your 'remarks' about
Jews were 'scurrilous', and your 'explanation of your remarks' was
'dishonest' and 'cowardly'. In your reply, you deleted (purposely?)
my quotation of your paragraph which partly prompted my criticism,
which included your remark that it was a common stereotype, even
of Net members, that Jews are 'a boatload of loud-mouthed whiners.'
Note that my criticism was of your expressed views, not
of you personally otherwise. Also, I don't know of anyone of Net.
religion who has agreed with your views about this.
I'm sure I have disagreed with many people, about other
matters, including Rich, Mike Huybensz, also Richard Brower, and
I realize I must have misinterpretted what they have said many times.
But I don't even dislike them at all for their views. So you find
me agreeing in this matter with both Rich and Mr. Brower, although
I have disagreed with them about other things. Mr. Huybensz can
speak for himself, but I would very much doubt that he would side
with your explanation of your remarks about Jews, even though he
disagrees with me about religion.
As for 'Christian-style communication', with which you're
so familiar I'm sure: You hypocrite! You are sliding into a pit
of alienation of your own making. Why create resentment for the
sake of vanity? Why don't you sincerely apologize for your remarks
which obviously offend others?
Do this, and we will all be better off. That's my advice.
David Harwoodroot@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (07/09/85)
In article <614@cvl.UUCP> harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) writes: > > I would rather that Rich had not introduced my opinion > into his exchange with you, although I largely agree with him > concerning your remarks about Jews. Which just proves that you didn't read the article carefully and have prejudged my words as being anti-semetic. At no time have I revealed my opinion or attitude concerning Jews... my remarks treated Rich Rosen and the perceptions of people on the net. > But I doubt that anyone can lash you or anyone else into repentance, > although we should make clear what is wrong. Here again we see a self-righteous need to "lash the bad guy into submission and repentence." Tell me Mr. Harwood. If you were indeed proven wrong in your view... would you also take the same punishment that you would gleefully dole out upon me? Since you seem so adamant in cowing me before the alter of truth... would you also yield yourself to the same truth? I doubt it. And how can you make clear what is wrong without first having a clear perception of what I am saying? Remove the log from your own eye before removing the mote from your brother's. > I said before that it is my opinion your 'remarks' about > Jews were 'scurrilous', and your 'explanation of your remarks' was > 'dishonest' and 'cowardly'. In your reply, you deleted (purposely?) > my quotation of your paragraph which partly prompted my criticism, Every machine from here to utzoo has a copy of both of our articles and you can use the Reference numbers as pointers! Really Mr. Harwood... why must you make such a triviality sound like an attempt at deception? Would you care to elaborate on WHY this particular quotation is so important? Wouldn't you rather reference the original vile quotation which I notice YOU failed to include into article 566@cvl? > which included your remark that it was a common stereotype, even > of Net members, that Jews are 'a boatload of loud-mouthed whiners.' No Mr. Harwood. Stop embellishing my words to meet your own ends. I did not say it was "a common stereotype." I claimed that it IS a stereotype existant in the world today and that there are quite possibly people on the net that would perceive attitudes such as Rich Rosen's as being Jewish due to this sterotype. After all... look at the "large numbers of people that didn't recognize Don Black's articles for what they really were." Surely THEY are not immune. > Note that my criticism was of your expressed views, not > of you personally otherwise. Also, I don't know of anyone of Net. > religion who has agreed with your views about this. Popular opinion is hardly an indication of truthfulness. You know this. Yet you still trot this little missconception out.... > I'm sure I have disagreed with many people, about other > matters, including Rich, Mike Huybensz, also Richard Brower, and > I realize I must have misinterpretted what they have said many times. > But I don't even dislike them at all for their views. Gee.. how good of you... this is hardly a major triumph however. > So you find me agreeing in this matter with both Rich and Mr. Brower, > although I have disagreed with them about other things. Mr. Huybensz > can speak for himself, but I would very much doubt that he would side > with your explanation of your remarks about Jews, even though he > disagrees with me about religion. But that is just the point that you and Rich Rosen have missed... a point that has been expressed quite clearly. I didn't say anything about the attitudes of Jews. My objection is to Rich Rosen's attitude and the PERCEIVED attitude of Jews people have. It has nothing to do with my perception of how Jews behave or what their attitudes might be. You may call this a coward's way of weasling out of the subject but you are quite wrong for saying so. What is amazing is that no matter how often or how eloquently I refine and reinforce my statements (without a single conceptual change) you still refuse to believe. This tells me that you AREN'T interested in the truth or learning what my opinion is. It tells me that you are inflexible... like Rich Rosen and concerned only with "lashing repentence" out of someone you perceive as an anti-semetic. And tell me this... if I really DID hold such vile opnions of Jews, then why did I wait till now to voice them, instead of voicing them along with Don Black? Further... why would I do so in such an obtuse manner? Why not just come right out and say what I believed if you think I really hold such ideas about Jews? Could it be perhaps because YOU have erred in your interpretation of what I said? A possibility that YOU must consider. And if you ARE wrong then it is YOU who have some serious repentence to do. I clearly stated a similar opinion to Rich, yet he is as determined as ever to crucify me on the cross of his interpretation. Humility Mr. Harwood... will serve you better here. > As for 'Christian-style communication', with which you're > so familiar I'm sure: You hypocrite! You are sliding into a pit > of alienation of your own making. Why create resentment for the > sake of vanity? Why don't you sincerely apologize for your remarks > which obviously offend others? Apologize because I offend someone... or apologize because it is right to do so? Would Christ have apologized because he offended a few people even when he knew that what he said was right? Talk about hypocrites! All you seem to care about is how I am perceived by the net... not what the truth is. Why do you assume this is vanity? Because you need a label to pin on me and you cannot think of any other reason why I would say these "obviously anti-semetic" things. It's so much easier just to pin a label like "coward" or "hypocrite" on me than it is to try and understand the meaning behind my words. > Do this, and we will all be better off. That's my advice. > > David Harwood Go back and read my original article in an objective light and see exactly what I said... that's MY advice. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Mr. Fusion"