[net.religion] Reply to Rich Rosen

root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (06/07/85)

>> This is what Rich implied by saying Don Black wants to "take over."
>
> Nice of you to make bizarre, misquoted, out of context statements like
> this.  Why not insert a quote documenting my saying this?  I'll tell
> you why not:  because I didn't say it.

Why not insert a quote documenting my attempt to silence freedom of
speech on the net?  I'll tell you why not:  because I didn't say it.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.....

> [Rich Rosen]
> In my opinion, your opinions are not among that few, and I think I've offered
> my reasons in support of that.  In response, you talk of how in your opinion
> we should all shut up because you don't like what you hear,

> [Rich Rosen]
> And for as long as people ARE free to do so, YOU can be ignored in your
> desire to see us all be silent.

> [Rich Rosen]
> I think I'm "proving" to you what you already choose to believe.  You don't
> like people speaking out about those who would foist tyranny upon us.  Well,
> good for you.

Rich, if I REALLY wanted to supress your freedom of speech, and promote
the ideology of Don Black, then tell me.... why didn't I speak up when
you and Don Black where posting your original articles.....  hmmmmmmmm????

>> [Lord Frith]
>> Recall that the original discussion was confined to Don Black's
>> postings.  Sure there is a threat out there... but it's not on the net,
>> unless you wish to consider the effect Black will have on the more
>> gullible net-nerds.  It strikes me that there are fewer of those than
>> Rich says there are.

> [Rich Rosen]
> I incrementing the count by 1 after reading your articles.

> [Rich Rosen from a previous article]
> Fact was, a large number of people didn't recognize his "old ways" stuff
> for what it was and is.  Some still don't.  Some could care less.

Why don't you substantiate your claim, Rich.  Where are these large
numbers of people and can you name them?  What is a large number in
your eyes Rich?  Four?  Five?  If you're truly concerned with the
effect Don Black's and your own postings have then I suggest that you
gather some realistic evidence before jumping to such conclusions.  How
many of these people did you talk to personally and how many of them
actually said, "Gee... I didn't recognize this for what it was."

Perhaps they didn't care.  Perhaps they decided to respond to such
postings in a way that you interpreted as ignorance.  Perhaps they
were willing to leave the flaming to you since that seems to be what
you're good at.

>> Exactly.  If EVERYONE hit the 'n' key then he WOULD disappear, along
>> with his neo.net.nonsense.  That's all I was saying.  Of course, there
>> will always be a gullible few who read, and believe, the philosophy of
>> Don Black.  But acting like flaming zealots will only confirm their
>> misguided opinions.
> 
> Like they 'n'ed Hitler.  It is NEVER worth just blithely ignoring hatred.
> It is always worthwhile to show it for what it is, for hatred will engage
> in deception of the basest and most manipulative kind to sway its audience.
> And we've seen how easily that tactic works on the uninformed.

Again, you're not being clever Rich.  I wish you wouldn't parrot the
same worn-out litany when it clearly doesn't apply.  "Like they xxxxxx
Hitler" indeed!  I NEVER said that one should "blithely ignore hatred"
I suggested that you consider an alternative to the negative impact you
might well be generating with excessive flaming.

>> Also, my primary CONCERN is not the net.  My primary concern is the
>> effect these postings have on the net community.  The domain of
>> discussion with Rich Rosen was "the net"... but Rich seems determined
>> to hammer his point home by artificially expanding the topic of
>> conversation.
> 
> Give references of what you are talking about.  Artificially?  Expanding?

Artificially.  As in discrediting what I say by introducing topics I
did not cover.  Don Black may admire Hitler, but that doesn't mean
he's rolling into town astride a Panzer IV tomorrow.  If you want to
broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to blame
me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing.

> The sphere of influence of the net is its readership, and perhaps associates
> of its readership, and if the articles dissecting what Black is all about
> make a point driven home and understood by ONE person, it is more than
> worthwhile.

I've already covered this.  I made it quite clear that you SHOULD dissect
his articles... but not to the point that it becomes counterproductive
to you and to the network community.  You know what happens when you
dissect something too much?  You have a purre'd mess.  You certainly
have justification to defend your position, I never denied this and
I don't know why you continue to assert that I did.  What I object to
is your taking that justification and making it the excuse to indulge in
any arbitrary excess.

It's this exagerated viewpoint that prevents you from appraising my
point.  There's no median ground for you:  only black and white.
Either I must flame Don Black for each and every transgretion or I am
determined to silence the voices defending freedom.  One or the other.
It didn't occur to you that there might be gradations to these
two extremes.

>> I never denied that there is "a threat" but no one seems to want to
>> think about exactly where that threat is coming from.  Beating Don
>> Black's postings senseless will not change that threat.
> 
> What is your complaint?  As I mentioned above, the counterpostings are
> certainly not doing harm, and are probably doing some good in informing
> some.  Is it just that you don't like to see them and seek to squelch
> those who would say those things?  Or what?

Agreed... counterpostings ARE doing good... certainly for the benefit
of those reading them.  I do it all the time so why would I object to
it?  But does that mean that this is the ONLY position one can take?
Does the world come to an end if you haven't returned three articles
for Don Black's every one?

Your determination to beat my original article to a pulp displays more
your obsessive tendencies than it does my supposed ignorance of the
situation.

And don't be so naive' as to think that the more you post, the better.
You may wish the counterpostings to always be productive, but such is
not always the case.  Didn't I make myself clear when I indicated the
negative effect your obssessive behavior can have?  People will look at
all of these flames and conclude "what a bunch of screaming idiots."
Don't assume that your electronic courtroom is really having the
positive effect that you would like it to.

>>> [Eliyahu Teitz]
>>> Look at the people going around preaching hatred. Don't look at words
>>> and dots on your screen. What Rich and the rest of us are attacking is
>>> not the articles on the net, it is the philosophy behind these
>>> articles. What we are trying to do is show others the danger of letting
>>> people like Black talk out, without attacking their premeses. To ignore
>>> them now when they are weak will only cause problems later when they
>>> are strong.

>> I have no problem with this.  Attack their premeses.  Expose the
>> danger.  Just understand that YOU TOO can go too far by embarking on a
>> righteous crusade to purge the net of anti-semetic philosophies.  You
>> can only beat a dead horse so many times before the stink makes you
>> realize that that's a dead horse lying there.
> 
> Let's hear YOUR definition of "too far".  I think it's at variance with that
> of others.  I think it falls short of pointing out what manipulative trash
> in the guise of patriotism or moralism or religion is really saying, for
> whatever reasons you have for that.

My definition of "too far" applies to me.  You are free to do as you wish.

>> Each person must take responsibility for his or her ideas in such a public
>> forum.  This is a good time to start.
>
> Imagine that.  I thought we were making Black and his kind accountable for his
> ideas in this public forum.  But that's what you're complaining about.
> I don't understand...

You don't understand, yet you continue to ridicule me.  You claim I wish to
"blithely ignore all hatred" and "silence those on the net because I don't
like what I hear" and yet you ignore the following...

>> [Lord Frith]
>> I have no problem with this.  Attack their premeses.  Expose the
>> danger.  Just understand that YOU TOO can go too far by embarking on a
>> righteous crusade to purge the net of anti-semetic philosophies.  You
>> can only beat a dead horse so many times before the stink makes you
>> realize that that's a dead horse lying there.

Are you so paranoid that you can only interrpret my suggestion of
tolerance as an unconditional sanction of anti-semetism on the net
(and off the net as well)?  Show some flexibility of thought before
condemning me.  You're not thinking like a human being, you're
reacting... like an animal.
-- 

UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

Rambo: First Blood part III	The Quest for Jane Fonda

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/13/85)

> Why not insert a quote documenting my attempt to silence freedom of
> speech on the net?  I'll tell you why not:  because I didn't say it.
> What's good for the goose is good for the gander..... [FRITH]

A quote?  The point of your whole argument is that WE (the rest of us)
shouldn't be raising such a stink about neo-Nazism on the net.  If that's
not a desire to see us be silent on the issue, what is?

>>> [Lord Frith]
>>> Recall that the original discussion was confined to Don Black's
>>> postings.  Sure there is a threat out there... but it's not on the net,
>>> unless you wish to consider the effect Black will have on the more
>>> gullible net-nerds.  It strikes me that there are fewer of those than
>>> Rich says there are.

>> [Rich Rosen]
>> I incrementing the count by 1 after reading your articles.

>> [Rich Rosen from a previous article]
>> Fact was, a large number of people didn't recognize his "old ways" stuff
>> for what it was and is.  Some still don't.  Some could care less.

> Why don't you substantiate your claim, Rich.  Where are these large
> numbers of people and can you name them?  What is a large number in
> your eyes Rich?  Four?  Five?  If you're truly concerned with the
> effect Don Black's and your own postings have then I suggest that you
> gather some realistic evidence before jumping to such conclusions.  How
> many of these people did you talk to personally and how many of them
> actually said, "Gee... I didn't recognize this for what it was."

You can't have it both ways, my friend.  First you make the claim earlier
that the net is not the whole world but only a small subset (though I have
said that influencing only one person to recognize what Don Black represents
would make it worthwhile).  Then you complain about only "four" or "five"
people out of the small subset that is the net not recognizing what has
occurred.  A small number can be a large portion of a small subset.  One
example I can give offhand is Vince Marchionni, who debated with Black
philosophically, claiming to have a desire to reason with him about his
religious beliefs in a rational fashion, not at all recognizing him for what
he represented.  There was another person, a woman, who at first asked the
same questions you did, but after seeing the postings again, she admitted
that she had been unaware of what Black really was and responded to his
neo-Nazi propaganda openly.  And there were others, too.  Any number I'd
show you would be a "small number" that would be irrelevant to you who has
already come to a conclusion about the worthwhileness of all this, so I'm
not sure why I'm even bothering.  You're not interested in reasoned argument,
you're seemingly only interested in foisting you view that discussing
neo-Nazism is a bad thing.

> Perhaps they didn't care.  Perhaps they decided to respond to such
> postings in a way that you interpreted as ignorance.  Perhaps they
> were willing to leave the flaming to you since that seems to be what
> you're good at.

They should have waited for you to come along.  You do a much better job
of invoking irrelevant flaming for no apparent reason than I ever could.
Your "perhaps"es, as I indicated above, are not quite what really happened.

>>> Exactly.  If EVERYONE hit the 'n' key then he WOULD disappear, along
>>> with his neo.net.nonsense.  That's all I was saying.  Of course, there
>>> will always be a gullible few who read, and believe, the philosophy of
>>> Don Black.  But acting like flaming zealots will only confirm their
>>> misguided opinions.
>> 
>> Like they 'n'ed Hitler.  It is NEVER worth just blithely ignoring hatred.
>> It is always worthwhile to show it for what it is, for hatred will engage
>> in deception of the basest and most manipulative kind to sway its audience.
>> And we've seen how easily that tactic works on the uninformed.

> Again, you're not being clever Rich.  I wish you wouldn't parrot the
> same worn-out litany when it clearly doesn't apply.  "Like they xxxxxx
> Hitler" indeed!  I NEVER said that one should "blithely ignore hatred"
> I suggested that you consider an alternative to the negative impact you
> might well be generating with excessive flaming.

You mean the way you accused Brower of giving a bad name to Jews with his
excessive flaming?  Despite the fact that Brower isn't Jewish?  As I said
before, it's apparent that you yourself hold the very prejudice you claim
that you're seeking to avoid, that of the Jew who speaks out against
anti-Semitism as an obnoxious loudmouth.  Why else would you have assumed
that Brower was Jewish?  The "litany" most certainly does apply.  In what
way does it not?

>>> Also, my primary CONCERN is not the net.  My primary concern is the
>>> effect these postings have on the net community.  The domain of
>>> discussion with Rich Rosen was "the net"... but Rich seems determined
>>> to hammer his point home by artificially expanding the topic of
>>> conversation.
> 
>> Give references of what you are talking about.  Artificially?  Expanding?

> Artificially.  As in discrediting what I say by introducing topics I
> did not cover.  Don Black may admire Hitler, but that doesn't mean
> he's rolling into town astride a Panzer IV tomorrow.  If you want to
> broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to blame
> me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing.

Those that admire Hitler have organized into groups that ARE well-armed
and very organized.  When asked about this by someone else, who questioned
you as to whether or not you had ever heard of the Aryan Nations or other
such groups, you didn't answer?  DO you know about those groups?  If so,
how can you make the statements you've made?  If not, do some reading before
mouthing off again!

>> The sphere of influence of the net is its readership, and perhaps associates
>> of its readership, and if the articles dissecting what Black is all about
>> make a point driven home and understood by ONE person, it is more than
>> worthwhile.

> I've already covered this.  I made it quite clear that you SHOULD dissect
> his articles... but not to the point that it becomes counterproductive
> to you and to the network community.  You know what happens when you
> dissect something too much?  You have a purre'd mess.  You certainly
> have justification to defend your position, I never denied this and
> I don't know why you continue to assert that I did.  What I object to
> is your taking that justification and making it the excuse to indulge in
> any arbitrary excess.

Somehow YOU have deemed yourself the arbiter of what defines "excess".  Others,
like Brower, as well as others, Jews and non-Jews, have spoken out at length
on this issue.  You would seem to be alone in deciding that this particular
level of dissection, of dissemination of information, is "excessive".  Given
that, why do you seek our willing silence on this issue?

> It's this exagerated viewpoint that prevents you from appraising my
> point.  There's no median ground for you:  only black and white.
> Either I must flame Don Black for each and every transgretion or I am
> determined to silence the voices defending freedom.  One or the other.
> It didn't occur to you that there might be gradations to these
> two extremes.

I don't care what YOU personally do.  The fact that you see speaking out
on neo-Nazism as "excessive" lets me know a little about what you are and
aren't willing to do, and what your position might be.  The speaking out
that has been done IS just a gradation.  It's apparent to me that you won't
speak out any further because you think it's "excessive" or "counterproductive"
to do so.  Good for you.  Let the rest of us who seek to disseminate some
information once in a while on the topic do so in peace, without your
complaints.
> Your determination to beat my original article to a pulp displays more
> your obsessive tendencies than it does my supposed ignorance of the
> situation.

Excuse me, but wasn't it YOUR original article that was attempting to beat
MY article (on what have we learned) to a bloody pulp?  Let's get this
into perspective now!!  As evidenced above, your ignorance on this issue
is quite apparently not "supposed" at all.

> And don't be so naive' as to think that the more you post, the better.
> You may wish the counterpostings to always be productive, but such is
> not always the case.  Didn't I make myself clear when I indicated the
> negative effect your obssessive behavior can have?  People will look at
> all of these flames and conclude "what a bunch of screaming idiots."

Then why not stop screaming like an idiot and let other people speak on
the topic?  Your insistence that we all stop has been the only flow of
noise on the whole topic of late.  (*MY* obsessive behavior???)

>>>> [Eliyahu Teitz]
>>>> Look at the people going around preaching hatred. Don't look at words
>>>> and dots on your screen. What Rich and the rest of us are attacking is
>>>> not the articles on the net, it is the philosophy behind these
>>>> articles. What we are trying to do is show others the danger of letting
>>>> people like Black talk out, without attacking their premeses. To ignore
>>>> them now when they are weak will only cause problems later when they
>>>> are strong.

>>> I have no problem with this.  Attack their premeses.  Expose the
>>> danger.  Just understand that YOU TOO can go too far by embarking on a
>>> righteous crusade to purge the net of anti-semetic philosophies.  You
>>> can only beat a dead horse so many times before the stink makes you
>>> realize that that's a dead horse lying there.
> 
>> Let's hear YOUR definition of "too far".  I think it's at variance with that
>> of others.  I think it falls short of pointing out what manipulative trash
>> in the guise of patriotism or moralism or religion is really saying, for
>> whatever reasons you have for that.

> My definition of "too far" applies to me.  You are free to do as you wish.

Yet you've been insisting to the rest of us that we've been going too far.
That we are "giving Jews a bad image" (although you did say that to a non-Jew).
What you have been telling us is that our speaking out IS going too far,
that by your standards we should NOT be free to do as we wish.

>>> Each person must take responsibility for his or her ideas in such a public
>>> forum.  This is a good time to start.
>
>> Imagine that.  I thought we were making Black and his kind accountable for
>> his ideas in this public forum.  But that's what you're complaining about.
>> I don't understand...

> You don't understand, yet you continue to ridicule me.  You claim I wish to
> "blithely ignore all hatred" and "silence those on the net because I don't
> like what I hear" and yet you ignore the following...
> 
> >> [Lord Frith]
> >> I have no problem with this.  Attack their premeses.  Expose the
> >> danger.  Just understand that YOU TOO can go too far by embarking on a
> >> righteous crusade to purge the net of anti-semetic philosophies.  You
> >> can only beat a dead horse so many times before the stink makes you
> >> realize that that's a dead horse lying there.

It remains funny that only you have decided on this particular version of
"too far".  Fact is, no one has spoken to the issues directly since you
went on your tirade telling everyone how YOU thought we were all going too
far.  As I said before, the horse is alive and we should continue to beat it.
(Again, apologies to horse lovers for the crude analogy.)

> Are you so paranoid that you can only interrpret my suggestion of
> tolerance as an unconditional sanction of anti-semetism on the net
> (and off the net as well)?  Show some flexibility of thought before
> condemning me.  You're not thinking like a human being, you're
> reacting... like an animal.

I think we've all shown remarkable flexibility of thought in relating to you.
You persist in telling other people how we should adhere to your definition
of "too far" in exposing bigotry in the guise of patriotism and religion,
and we have tried to reason with you.  This article has shown that it is
not possible.  Don't bother responding.  Please.  Those of us who wish to
speak will continue to do so.  You will probably continue to think that it
is "going too far".  Good for you.  Don't bother repeating yourself.  We
know how you feel.  Give us our freedom of speech.  Let us "dig our own
graves", as you might choose to put it.  Better us than you through your
silence.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr

root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (06/18/85)

In article <1077@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes:
>> Why not insert a quote documenting my attempt to silence freedom of
>> speech on the net?  I'll tell you why not:  because I didn't say it.
>> What's good for the goose is good for the gander..... [FRITH]
>
> A quote?  The point of your whole argument is that WE (the rest of us)
> shouldn't be raising such a stink about neo-Nazism on the net.  If that's
> not a desire to see us be silent on the issue, what is?

Well you're wrong.  So much for your opinion.

>> I NEVER said that one should "blithely ignore hatred" I suggested that
>> you consider an alternative to the negative impact you might well be
>> generating with excessive flaming.
>
> You mean the way you accused Brower of giving a bad name to Jews with his
> excessive flaming?  Despite the fact that Brower isn't Jewish?

He isn't the only one apparently.

> As I said before, it's apparent that you yourself hold the very
> prejudice you claim that you're seeking to avoid, that of the Jew who
> speaks out against Anti-Semitism as an obnoxious loudmouth.  Why else
> would you have assumed that Brower was Jewish?

Why do you insist that I said Brower was Jewish when I didn't?  This
contradiction (that I apparently hold the same prejudices that I
condemn) should tell you that you are basing your conclusions on false
data.  And guess where that false data is coming from, Rich.  That's
right.  Inside your own little head.

>> Artificially.  As in discrediting what I say by introducing topics I
>> did not cover.  Don Black may admire Hitler, but that doesn't mean
>> he's rolling into town astride a Panzer IV tomorrow.  If you want to
>> broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to blame
>> me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing.
>
> Those that admire Hitler have organized into groups that ARE well-armed
> and very organized.  When asked about this by someone else, who questioned
> you as to whether or not you had ever heard of the Aryan Nations or other
> such groups, you didn't answer?  DO you know about those groups?  If so,
> how can you make the statements you've made?  If not, do some reading before
> mouthing off again!

I made no statments concerning the Aryan Nations.  Again, Rich, if you
want to broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to
blame me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing.
Your above repsonse shows that you are still determined to force your
own pet diatribes on me.

> Somehow YOU have deemed yourself the arbiter of what defines "excess".
> Others, like Brower, as well as others, Jews and non-Jews, have spoken
> out at length on this issue.  You would seem to be alone in deciding
> that this particular level of dissection, of dissemination of
> information, is "excessive".  Given that, why do you seek our willing
> silence on this issue?

More ridiculous claims concerning statements I never made.

>> It's this exagerated viewpoint that prevents you from appraising my
>> point.  There's no median ground for you:  only black and white.
>> Either I must flame Don Black for each and every transgretion or I am
>> determined to silence the voices defending freedom.  One or the other.
>> It didn't occur to you that there might be gradations to these
>> two extremes.
>
> I don't care what YOU personally do.

Then why are you flaming at me?  My postings do not restrict your freedom
in the slightest.  If you really think they do, then you are indeed a sick
man.

> The fact that you see speaking out on neo-Nazism as "excessive"

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

> It's apparent to me that you won't speak out any further because you
> think it's "excessive" or "counterproductive" to do so.  Good for you.
> Let the rest of us who seek to disseminate some information once in a
> while on the topic do so in peace, without your complaints.

Trying to silence my freedom of speech now Rich?  Tsk tsk.

>> Your determination to beat my original article to a pulp displays more
>> your obsessive tendencies than it does my supposed ignorance of the
>> situation.
>
> Excuse me, but wasn't it YOUR original article that was attempting to beat
> MY article (on what have we learned) to a bloody pulp?

No it didn't.

>> And don't be so naive' as to think that the more you post, the better.
>> You may wish the counterpostings to always be productive, but such is
>> not always the case.  Didn't I make myself clear when I indicated the
>> negative effect your obssessive behavior can have?  People will look at
>> all of these flames and conclude "what a bunch of screaming idiots."
>
> Then why not stop screaming like an idiot and let other people speak on
> the topic?

Again... I do not hold the reigns on your freedom.  Why do you insist that
I hold your freedom of speech captive like some Moslem terrorist?  Lately,
you've been seething with nothing but neurotic imagry about my "little
prejudices" and "attempts to silence freedom of speech."  Rich, I think
you need to sit down and take a long hard look at yourself.

> What you have been telling us is that our speaking out IS going too far,
> that by your standards we should NOT be free to do as we wish.

Nope.

> I think we've all shown remarkable flexibility of thought in relating to you.
> You persist in telling other people how we should adhere to your definition
> of "too far" in exposing bigotry in the guise of patriotism and religion,
> and we have tried to reason with you.  This article has shown that it is
> not possible.  Don't bother responding.  Please.  Those of us who wish to
> speak will continue to do so.  You will probably continue to think that it
> is "going too far".  Good for you.

A perfect example of sophistry at its worst.  Rule one when attempting
to belittle someone: Phrase your accusations as if they come from a body
of people.  After all, who would oppose the will of the people?  Then
claim that the words of the accused are his own prosecutor.  Finally
wrap up the package by humoring the poor fool.  Good for you little
boy.

Stick it Rich.  No one enjoys this kind of shit.

> Don't bother repeating yourself.

If you don't want to hear it Rich then you can ignore it.

> We know how you feel.

Who elected you the representative of the people or were you self-appointed?
-- 

UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

"Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/19/85)

>>As I said before, it's apparent that you yourself hold the very
>>prejudice you claim that you're seeking to avoid, that of the Jew who
>>speaks out against Anti-Semitism as an obnoxious loudmouth.  Why else
>>would you have assumed that Brower was Jewish? [ROSEN]

> Why do you insist that I said Brower was Jewish when I didn't?  This
> contradiction (that I apparently hold the same prejudices that I
> condemn) should tell you that you are basing your conclusions on false
> data.  And guess where that false data is coming from, Rich.  That's
> right.  Inside your own little head. [ROSEN]

No, Frith, from inside you own little article.  Every time either Brower
and I have mentioned it you've tacitly ignored it, but here's the excerpt
from your article 942@trwatf.UUCP in which you respond to Brower.  He, too,
later had to point out your erroneous assumption here.

> It's quite obvious what I'm talking about.  Just read the segment of my
> article above, that you have thoughtfully included and you'll find
> out.  We're talking about Don Black's threat to the net.  Through his
> postings, I say little to no threat.  I also contend that beating his
> articles to death in an EXCESSIVE manner will do little to no good.
> Further, I contend that your attitude, as well as Rich Rosen's, will
> only confirm "their" notions of the Jew as an obsessive, loud-mouthed
> whiner.  You're not helping to clear up that stereotype much by
> insisting that I confine my discussion to YOUR domain. ["LORD" FRITH]

Why else would you say that BROWER'S attitude would "confirm" other people's
notions about Jews unless you yourself assumed him to be Jewish?  False data,
my ass.

>>>Artificially.  As in discrediting what I say by introducing topics I
>>>did not cover.  Don Black may admire Hitler, but that doesn't mean
>>>he's rolling into town astride a Panzer IV tomorrow.  If you want to
>>>broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to blame
>>>me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing.
>
>>Those that admire Hitler have organized into groups that ARE well-armed
>>and very organized.  When asked about this by someone else, who questioned
>>you as to whether or not you had ever heard of the Aryan Nations or other
>>such groups, you didn't answer?  DO you know about those groups?  If so,
>>how can you make the statements you've made?  If not, do some reading before
>>mouthing off again!

> I made no statments concerning the Aryan Nations.  Again, Rich, if you
> want to broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to
> blame me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing.

You were responding to MY articles.  MY articles referred to the threat of
groups like the Aryan Nations.  Thus, since you were making statements about
my articles, those statements were made in reference to my own references to
those groups.

> Your above repsonse shows that you are still determined to force your
> own pet diatribes on me.

Your above response shows that you're just a very lame but determined arguer
without a leg to stand on.  Why don't you sit down and cool off?  This is no
longer an argument, this is a joke.  You accuse my facts of being false data,
you claim your statements were not made in relation to the groups I mentioned
in my own articles and yet you claim they were in response to my articles which
did mention them.  Grow up, please.

> Then why are you flaming at me?  My postings do not restrict your freedom
> in the slightest.  If you really think they do, then you are indeed a sick
> man.

Your postings express a DESIRE to see the postings on the issue stop.  We have
all shown that that approach is not a valid one when dealing with such things.
Yet you cling to your argument and repeat it endlessly.  For what purpose?

> > The fact that you see speaking out on neo-Nazism as "excessive"
> 
> Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

Right right right right right right right right right right.  If not, what the
fuck are you writing these articles telling us all that you don't like hearing
that type of speaking out?  To hear the sound of your own voice?  Get a tape
recorder and a set of headphones.

>> It's apparent to me that you won't speak out any further because you
>> think it's "excessive" or "counterproductive" to do so.  Good for you.
>> Let the rest of us who seek to disseminate some information once in a
>> while on the topic do so in peace, without your complaints.

> Trying to silence my freedom of speech now Rich?  Tsk tsk.

No, just asking you to respect the opinions of so many others and allow us to
speak openly without complaints from you.  Respect for other people is
apparently to much to ask from you.

>>>Your determination to beat my original article to a pulp displays more
>>>your obsessive tendencies than it does my supposed ignorance of the
>>>situation.
>
>>Excuse me, but wasn't it YOUR original article that was attempting to beat
>>MY article (on what have we learned) to a bloody pulp?

> No it didn't.

That's it.  End of reply.  This guy is obviously lying through his teeth to
put forth this crap at any cost.  That original article referred to attempts
to speak out and inform as catering to "childish imagination".  During that
reply to that article, I spent a lot of time talking about groups like the
Aryan Nations, thus it can be assumed that further responses from Frith were
at least in part responses to that.  Also, he did call me a flaming belligerent
idiot, which I guess shows very clearly how he was NOT beating my article
to a bloody pulp.  Stuff it in you ear, Frith.  As I said, this isn't an
argument, this is a joke.  And a very bad and ill-formed one on your part.

>> And don't be so naive' as to think that the more you post, the better.
> A perfect example of sophistry at its worst.  Rule one when attempting
> to belittle someone: Phrase your accusations as if they come from a body
> of people.  After all, who would oppose the will of the people?  Then
> claim that the words of the accused are his own prosecutor.  Finally
> wrap up the package by humoring the poor fool.  Good for you little
> boy.
> 
> Stick it Rich.  No one enjoys this kind of shit.

Except you.  You apparently like both giving and receiving it.   But I'll 
cater to your base little masochistic tastes no longer, my friend.  You'll
have to go back to abusing yourself now.
-- 
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?"    Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (06/21/85)

In article <1106@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes:
>> Why do you insist that I said Brower was Jewish when I didn't?  This
>> contradiction (that I apparently hold the same prejudices that I
>> condemn) should tell you that you are basing your conclusions on false
>> data.  And guess where that false data is coming from, Rich.  That's
>> right.  Inside your own little head. [Frith]
>
> No, Frith, from inside you own little article.  Every time either Brower
> and I have mentioned it you've tacitly ignored it, but here's the excerpt
> from your article 942@trwatf.UUCP in which you respond to Brower.  He, too,
> later had to point out your erroneous assumption here....
>
>> Further, I contend that your attitude, as well as Rich Rosen's, will
>> only confirm "their" notions of the Jew as an obsessive, loud-mouthed
>> whiner.  You're not helping to clear up that stereotype much by
>> insisting that I confine my discussion to YOUR domain. ["LORD" FRITH]
>
> Why else would you say that BROWER'S attitude would "confirm" other people's
> notions about Jews unless you yourself assumed him to be Jewish?

Because other people interpret such attitudes as being Jewish you fool!
If I thought he was Jewish then why didn't I refer to the both of you as
Jews?  Obviously because I didn't make such an assumption.  Both of you
are arguing in defense of Jews, but with little concern for the negative
effect your attitudes (especially yours Rich) might be doing them.

Both of you are so absolutley convinced that I want to silence the voice
of Jews on this net that you've blinded yourselves to ANY interpretation
other than that of Frith as the anti-semetic.  To reiterate my earlier
statement, you had better look to cleaning up your own act before you
challenge the likes of Don Black.

>> I made no statments concerning the Aryan Nations.  Again, Rich, if you
>> want to broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to
>> blame me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing.
>
> You were responding to MY articles.  MY articles referred to the threat of
> groups like the Aryan Nations.  Thus, since you were making statements about
> my articles, those statements were made in reference to my own references to
> those groups.

Now there's the typical self-centered Rich Rosen point of view.  No
Rich... YOU responded to my original article which claimed that you
have an alternative to flaming excessivly against Don Black.  You
remember that one don't you?  As such, YOU should respond to what I
said, instead of condemning me for not covering the topics you have
decreed that I should.

Stop introducing material with the expectation that I am liable for
responding to it.  My original article put forth one idea... one
suggestion.  If you don't like it then you're free to comment on it,
but don't judge what I said according to what you think I *should* have
said.

> [Rich Rosen]
> Your above response shows that you're just a very lame but determined arguer
> without a leg to stand on.  Why don't you sit down and cool off?

I'm calm and collected as can be Rich... unlike your attitude at times...

> [Rich Rosen]
> If you don't like it, you can shove it up your ass.  (Is that unawesome and
> unrighteous enough for you.  You seem intent on making asinine comments on
> every word I have to say, don't you?)

> [Rich Rosen]
> This is no longer an argument, this is a joke.  You accuse my facts of
> being false data, you claim your statements were not made in relation
> to the groups I mentioned in my own articles and yet you claim they
> were in response to my articles which did mention them.  Grow up, please.

Rich, I've expressed myself carefully and clearly.  At no time have I
stooped to the lows of sophistry that you have.  Nor have I made claims
as absurd as yours e.g. "Frith desires to see us silent because he
doesn't like what he hears."  No Rich.  You cannot make the truth
simply because you desire something to be so.  Now please... apply some
introspection and grow up yourself.

>> in the slightest.  If you really think they do, then you are indeed a sick
>> man.
>
> Your postings express a DESIRE to see the postings on the issue stop.  We have
> all shown that that approach is not a valid one when dealing with such things.
> Yet you cling to your argument and repeat it endlessly.  For what purpose?

Your postings express a DESIRE to show my ideas as false.  "We" have
failed to prove any of my ideas as false, although you have set up
several straw men in a vain attempt to knock down my ideas.  Neither do
I repeat my argument endlessly.  On the contrary, it is YOU who
continually brings up the subject of IC's, "the Aryan Nations" and
accusations concerning my supposed "prejudices."

No matter how eloquently I state my case, you seem to find a way to twist
it into some sort of anti-semetic negativism.  I did not say I disliked
hearing someone defend their position.  If you had looked at my articles
carefully you would see that I agreed with you when you stated that
exposing Don Black's ideas for what they are was a worthy occupation.

>>> The fact that you see speaking out on neo-Nazism as "excessive"
>> 
>> Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.
>
> Right right right right right right right right right right.

Oh boy... I wonder how long we can keep THIS going?  ;-)

>>> It's apparent to me that you won't speak out any further because you
>>> think it's "excessive" or "counterproductive" to do so.  Good for you.
>>> Let the rest of us who seek to disseminate some information once in a
>>> while on the topic do so in peace, without your complaints.
>
>> Trying to silence my freedom of speech now Rich?  Tsk tsk.
>
> No, just asking you to respect the opinions of so many others and allow us to
> speak openly without complaints from you.  Respect for other people is
> apparently to much to ask from you.

Ah yes... when reason fails, Rich Rosen resorts to ridicule.

>> Stick it Rich.  No one enjoys this kind of shit.
>
> Except you.  You apparently like both giving and receiving it.   But I'll 
> cater to your base little masochistic tastes no longer, my friend.  You'll
> have to go back to abusing yourself now.

Not bloody likely.  But I'm glad to see you are finally ready to stop this
nonsense.  Maybe now I can get some work done around here.
-- 

UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

"I eat X-men for BREAKFAST!"

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/24/85)

>>> Further, I contend that your attitude, as well as Rich Rosen's, will
>>> only confirm "their" notions of the Jew as an obsessive, loud-mouthed
>>> whiner.  You're not helping to clear up that stereotype much by
>>> insisting that I confine my discussion to YOUR domain. ["LORD" FRITH]
>
>> Why else would you say that BROWER'S attitude would "confirm" other people's
>> notions about Jews unless you yourself assumed him to be Jewish?

> Because other people interpret such attitudes as being Jewish you fool!
> If I thought he was Jewish then why didn't I refer to the both of you as
> Jews?  Obviously because I didn't make such an assumption.  Both of you
> are arguing in defense of Jews, but with little concern for the negative
> effect your attitudes (especially yours Rich) might be doing them.

What a vapid load of manure!  "Because OTHER people" will interpret...?  
Come off it!  It's very apparent that YOU yourself were one of those people.
Again, why did you say that Brower's "whining" would confirm their notions of
Jews, if not because you yourself believe him to be one?  Brower doesn't even
sound like a very Jewish name to me, so it certainly couldn't be that:  
the only reason you might believe that "others" would believe this is if
you believed it yourself.  

> Both of you are so absolutley convinced that I want to silence the voice
> of Jews on this net that you've blinded yourselves to ANY interpretation
> other than that of Frith as the anti-semetic.  To reiterate my earlier
> statement, you had better look to cleaning up your own act before you
> challenge the likes of Don Black.

What does "cleaning up our act" mean?  I mean, you deny repeatedly that you
think we should simply be silent about the issue, so what changes in our "act"
are you referring to?

>>> I made no statments concerning the Aryan Nations.  Again, Rich, if you
>>> want to broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to
>>> blame me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing.
>>
>> You were responding to MY articles.  MY articles referred to the threat of
>> groups like the Aryan Nations.  Thus, since you were making statements about
>> my articles, those statements were made in reference to my own references to
>> those groups.

> Now there's the typical self-centered Rich Rosen point of view.  No
> Rich... YOU responded to my original article which claimed that you
> have an alternative to flaming excessivly against Don Black.  You
> remember that one don't you?  As such, YOU should respond to what I
> said, instead of condemning me for not covering the topics you have
> decreed that I should.

OK, asshole, do you remember what the unchanged subject line on all of
these articles was for many weeks?  "Remembering the Holocaust:  What
Have We Learned?"  Who made up that subject line?  *ME*!!!  Who wrote the
original article containg that subject line?  *ME*!!!  Self-centered?
Perhaps because the article written by this particular "self" is the "center"
of this discussion and all that followed.  You pompous oaf!!!  The above
paragraph makes it quite clear that you have no desire to argue, preferring
to resort to lies and fabrications of the shoddiest kind to make your non-
point.  Which reminds me:  what IS your point?  You've denied that it is
the point I have perceived it to be?  Is there a point?  If not, the best
way to say nothing is not to say anything.  (Watch him call THIS an attempt
to silence him!)

> Stop introducing material with the expectation that I am liable for
> responding to it.  My original article put forth one idea... one
> suggestion.  If you don't like it then you're free to comment on it,
> but don't judge what I said according to what you think I *should* have
> said.

I'm judging it on what you did say.  How can I stop "introducing" material
that has already been posted, that you are supposedly responding to?

>>Your above response shows that you're just a very lame but determined arguer
>>without a leg to stand on.  Why don't you sit down and cool off?

> I'm calm and collected as can be Rich... unlike your attitude at times...

I think the excerpts I quote above show "Lord" Frith's attitude.  And I
agree that he is as calm and collect as HE can be...

>>This is no longer an argument, this is a joke.  You accuse my facts of
>>being false data, you claim your statements were not made in relation
>>to the groups I mentioned in my own articles and yet you claim they
>>were in response to my articles which did mention them.  Grow up, please.

> Rich, I've expressed myself carefully and clearly.  At no time have I
> stooped to the lows of sophistry that you have.  Nor have I made claims
> as absurd as yours e.g. "Frith desires to see us silent because he
> doesn't like what he hears."  No Rich.  You cannot make the truth
> simply because you desire something to be so.  Now please... apply some
> introspection and grow up yourself.

Deliberate fabrications (like "Rosen was responding to MY article!") are
not a form of primitive childish sophistry.  Sounds like a pretty absurd
claim to me.  As absurd as attempting to weasel out of your assuming Brower
was Jewish.

>>Your postings express a DESIRE to see the postings on the issue stop.  We have
>>all shown that that approach is not a valid one when dealing with such things.
>>Yet you cling to your argument and repeat it endlessly.  For what purpose?

> Your postings express a DESIRE to show my ideas as false.  "We" have
> failed to prove any of my ideas as false, although you have set up
> several straw men in a vain attempt to knock down my ideas.  Neither do
> I repeat my argument endlessly.  On the contrary, it is YOU who
> continually brings up the subject of IC's, "the Aryan Nations" and
> accusations concerning my supposed "prejudices."

Yeah, I bring up the subject of IC's and the Aryan Nations.  That's what
the article you responded to was all about, a response in which you referred
to me as a twit and a belligerent asshole, among other things (very "calm
and collected" of you).  Furthermore, I support my "accusations".  My "desire"
to show your ideas as false stems from the fact that 1) the evidence shows them
to be false and 2) your presenting them as true is an affront to those who
would stand up against bigotry.  You have repeatedly called our speaking out
about bigotry as excessive and counterproductive, but you have never described
what you consider a "proper" limit to such speaking out.  Given that anything
I have said on the subject you deem "excessive", I'd say you're just mouthing
off for the hell and really don't have anything to say on the subject except
the injection of a little noise and harrassment.

> No matter how eloquently I state my case, you seem to find a way to twist
> it into some sort of anti-semetic negativism.  I did not say I disliked
> hearing someone defend their position.  If you had looked at my articles
> carefully you would see that I agreed with you when you stated that
> exposing Don Black's ideas for what they are was a worthy occupation.

"Belligerent asshole" was as "eloquent" as you got, my friend.  Again,
what do you almighty one consider a "proper" limit to such exposure that
you in your wisdom would deem acceptable and not "counterproductive".  If
you can't tell us, then you're left with nothing to say.  Which probably
won't stop you.

> Oh boy... I wonder how long we can keep THIS going?  ;-)

You've successfully said nothing for months now.  I'm sure you can
emit it as quickly as I can analyze the nothingness in it.  Probably faster.

>>>>It's apparent to me that you won't speak out any further because you
>>>>think it's "excessive" or "counterproductive" to do so.  Good for you.
>>>>Let the rest of us who seek to disseminate some information once in a
>>>>while on the topic do so in peace, without your complaints.
>
>>>Trying to silence my freedom of speech now Rich?  Tsk tsk.
>
>>No, just asking you to respect the opinions of so many others and allow us to
>>speak openly without complaints from you.  Respect for other people is
>>apparently to much to ask from you.

> Ah yes... when reason fails, Rich Rosen resorts to ridicule.

And it so often fails in discussions with you.  Which is why one is forced
to resort to such ridicule.  Notice that he blithely ignored the first
part about speaking openly.  Where he has little to say, he find something
else to talk about.

>>>Stick it Rich.  No one enjoys this kind of shit.  [NOTE THE CALMNESS AND
		COLLECTEDNESS HERE. :-?]
>>Except you.  You apparently like both giving and receiving it.   But I'll 
>>cater to your base little masochistic tastes no longer, my friend.  You'll
>>have to go back to abusing yourself now.

> Not bloody likely.  But I'm glad to see you are finally ready to stop this
> nonsense.  Maybe now I can get some work done around here.

You could have done that a long time ago by ceasing and desisting from
"this nonsense".
-- 
Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (06/30/85)

In article <1125@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>>>> Further, I contend that your attitude, as well as Rich Rosen's, will
>>>> only confirm "their" notions of the Jew as an obsessive, loud-mouthed
>>>> whiner.  You're not helping to clear up that stereotype much by
>>>> insisting that I confine my discussion to YOUR domain. ["LORD" FRITH]
>>>
>>> Why else would you say that BROWER'S attitude would "confirm" other people's
>>> notions about Jews unless you yourself assumed him to be Jewish?
>>
>> Because other people interpret such attitudes as being Jewish you fool!
>> If I thought he was Jewish then why didn't I refer to the both of you as
>> Jews?  Obviously because I didn't make such an assumption.  Both of you
>> are arguing in defense of Jews, but with little concern for the negative
>> effect your attitudes (especially yours Rich) might be doing them.
>
> What a vapid load of manure!  "Because OTHER people" will interpret...?  
> Come off it!  It's very apparent that YOU yourself were one of those people.

If I were one of those people myself, Rich, then why did I go out of my
way to expose this particular prejudice in people?  How could I
possibly succumb to this prejudice and condemn it all in the same
sentence?  This obvious contradiction should have been a red flag to
you, Rich, but instead you insisted on interpreting my statements in
the light that best suited you.  Go back and read the excerpt again.
There is no reference to you or Brower as being Jewish.

The truth of the matter is that I did not assume you or Brower were
Jewish.  You can rant and rave and arrogantly insist that I am
prejudiced against you all you like but the truth still remains.  If
you don't like this, then call me a liar but you still have no proof
that I am and the truth remains.

> Again, why did you say that Brower's "whining" would confirm their notions of
> Jews, if not because you yourself believe him to be one?  Brower doesn't even
> sound like a very Jewish name to me, so it certainly couldn't be that:  

Just because YOU don't think it sounds Jewish, doesn't mean it doesn't
sound Jewish to someone else.  Actually Brower is a very Germanic sounding
name to me.  Probably because I once worked with one of the old-timers in
the space industry named Brower.  This guy had a very thick German accent
and was very aryan looking too with wire-rimmed glasses....

Didn't look terribly Jewish.

> the only reason you might believe that "others" would believe this is if
> you believed it yourself.  

No... I believe that "others" are prejudiced because they have TOLD me they
recognize this particular trait and interpret it as a Jewish one.  And guess
what Rich... SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE JEWISH.

>> Both of you are so absolutley convinced that I want to silence the voice
>> of Jews on this net that you've blinded yourselves to ANY interpretation
>> other than that of Frith as the anti-semetic.  To reiterate my earlier
>> statement, you had better look to cleaning up your own act before you
>> challenge the likes of Don Black.
>
> What does "cleaning up our act" mean?  I mean, you deny repeatedly that you
> think we should simply be silent about the issue, so what changes in our "act"
> are you referring to?

It's called "introspection"... an act I doubt you're capable of.

>> Now there's the typical self-centered Rich Rosen point of view.  No
>> Rich... YOU responded to my original article which claimed that you
>> have an alternative to flaming excessivly against Don Black.  You
>> remember that one don't you?  As such, YOU should respond to what I
>> said, instead of condemning me for not covering the topics you have
>> decreed that I should.
>
> OK, asshole, do you remember what the unchanged subject line on all of
> these articles was for many weeks?  "Remembering the Holocaust:  What
> Have We Learned?"  Who made up that subject line?  *ME*!!!  Who wrote the
> original article containg that subject line?  *ME*!!!  Self-centered?

And who originated the initial topic of conversation?  Me.  It concerned
ignoring the "hate baiters"... remember that one?

>> Rich, I've expressed myself carefully and clearly.  At no time have I
>> stooped to the lows of sophistry that you have.  Nor have I made claims
>> as absurd as yours e.g. "Frith desires to see us silent because he
>> doesn't like what he hears."  No Rich.  You cannot make the truth
>> simply because you desire something to be so.  Now please... apply some
>> introspection and grow up yourself.
>
> Deliberate fabrications (like "Rosen was responding to MY article!") are
> not a form of primitive childish sophistry.  Sounds like a pretty absurd
> claim to me.  As absurd as attempting to weasel out of your assuming Brower
> was Jewish.

Your claims are absurd.  And they remain just that... selfish claims.

>> Your postings express a DESIRE to show my ideas as false.  "We" have
>> failed to prove any of my ideas as false, although you have set up
>> several straw men in a vain attempt to knock down my ideas.  Neither do
>> I repeat my argument endlessly.  On the contrary, it is YOU who
>> continually brings up the subject of IC's, "the Aryan Nations" and
>> accusations concerning my supposed "prejudices."
>
> Yeah, I bring up the subject of IC's and the Aryan Nations.  That's what
> the article you responded to was all about, a response in which you referred
> to me as a twit and a belligerent asshole, among other things (very "calm
> and collected" of you).

More lies and distortions.  I have a copy of the original article and nowhere
does it refer to you as a belligerent asshole.  That comment came in a later
article and was a very calm statement.  You DO come off as a belligerent
asshole, Rich.  As for the my original article, it made no attempt to reply
to the content of your article.  So what?  I don't need you as a prime
mover.

> would stand up against bigotry.  You have repeatedly called our speaking out
> about bigotry as excessive and counterproductive, but you have never described
> what you consider a "proper" limit to such speaking out.

Again more distortions on your part Rich.  This is just the sort of
typical "Rich Rosen pin-the-meter" attitude that I object to.  I DID
NOT say speaking out against bigotry is excessive and counterproductive.
I said excessive and irresponsible flaming, no matter what it's
proposed intent, can be counterproductive.  There's a big difference.

See how you are twisting my ideas about in your own head to suit your
own flaming needs Rich?  You are distorting my words and your own
thoughts along with them.  I can only point out the outward signs of
your affliction, but you're the one who'll have to go in there with a
knife and do something about it.

>> No matter how eloquently I state my case, you seem to find a way to twist
>> it into some sort of anti-semetic negativism.  I did not say I disliked
>> hearing someone defend their position.  If you had looked at my articles
>> carefully you would see that I agreed with you when you stated that
>> exposing Don Black's ideas for what they are was a worthy occupation.
>
> "Belligerent asshole" was as "eloquent" as you got, my friend.  Again,
> what do you almighty one consider a "proper" limit to such exposure that
> you in your wisdom would deem acceptable and not "counterproductive".  If
> you can't tell us, then you're left with nothing to say.  Which probably
> won't stop you.

Don't look to me to regulate your freedoms for you.

>> Ah yes... when reason fails, Rich Rosen resorts to ridicule.
>
> And it so often fails in discussions with you.  Which is why one is forced
> to resort to such ridicule.  Notice that he blithely ignored the first
> part about speaking openly.  Where he has little to say, he find something
> else to talk about.

Ignored because I do not control your freedoms.  Control them youself.
-- 

UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

"Money for you from the Buddah"

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/04/85)

> If I were one of those people myself, Rich, then why did I go out of my
> way to expose this particular prejudice in people?  How could I
> possibly succumb to this prejudice and condemn it all in the same
> sentence?  This obvious contradiction should have been a red flag to
> you, Rich, but instead you insisted on interpreting my statements in
> the light that best suited you.  Go back and read the excerpt again.
> There is no reference to you or Brower as being Jewish.

As I read this, I hear a man so desperate to "clear his name" that he will
twist and shout till he's blue in the face.  You keep doing that if you like.
It's almost fun to watch you try it.  But I wasn't alone.  Brower noticed
it himself.  David Harwood, one of the few real Christians I've come across on
this net, noticed it, too, as did others.

> The truth of the matter is that I did not assume you or Brower were
> Jewish.  You can rant and rave and arrogantly insist that I am
> prejudiced against you all you like but the truth still remains.  If
> you don't like this, then call me a liar but you still have no proof
> that I am and the truth remains.

Proof?  Like having read your mind?  Well, they say actions speak louder
than words.  On the net, though, one's actions ARE one's words, and your
words speak for themselves.  From the beginning your purpose was to complain
that the level of criticism about neo-Nazism was too much for your taste.
When you complained that Brower and me "whining" about it would give a bad
image to Jews, how could you make that claim unless you yourself believed
we were both Jewish.  "Because OTHER people would mistake Brower as Jewish?"
Who the f**k do you think you're kidding?  After the fact excuse making of
the shoddiest kind.  Who on earth would you expect to believe such a story?
This joke has gone far enough.

>>Again, why did you say that Brower's "whining" would confirm their notions of
>>Jews, if not because you yourself believe him to be one?  Brower doesn't even
>>sound like a very Jewish name to me, so it certainly couldn't be that:  

> Just because YOU don't think it sounds Jewish, doesn't mean it doesn't
> sound Jewish to someone else.  Actually Brower is a very Germanic sounding
> name to me.  Probably because I once worked with one of the old-timers in
> the space industry named Brower.  This guy had a very thick German accent
> and was very aryan looking too with wire-rimmed glasses....

So now he changing his tune, claiming that his view is that it did sound
Jewish.  I don't know what point you're trying to make.  It sounds like you're
trying to cover your ass with as much protective shields as possible, even
though you've only got two buttocks.

>>the only reason you might believe that "others" would believe this is if
>>you believed it yourself.  

> No... I believe that "others" are prejudiced because they have TOLD me they
> recognize this particular trait and interpret it as a Jewish one.  And guess
> what Rich... SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE JEWISH.

Oh, please!  Your "best friends"?  Another buttock-coverer that's made of
tissue-paper.

>>>Both of you are so absolutley convinced that I want to silence the voice
>>>of Jews on this net that you've blinded yourselves to ANY interpretation
>>>other than that of Frith as the anti-semetic.  To reiterate my earlier
>>>statement, you had better look to cleaning up your own act before you
>>>challenge the likes of Don Black.
>
>>What does "cleaning up our act" mean?  I mean, you deny repeatedly that you
>>think we should simply be silent about the issue, so what changes in our "act"
>>are you referring to?

> It's called "introspection"... an act I doubt you're capable of.

This is the man who claims to be "calm and collected" about this whole affair.

>>>Now there's the typical self-centered Rich Rosen point of view.  No
>>>Rich... YOU responded to my original article which claimed that you
>>>have an alternative to flaming excessivly against Don Black.  You
>>>remember that one don't you?  As such, YOU should respond to what I
>>>said, instead of condemning me for not covering the topics you have
>>>decreed that I should.
>
>>OK, asshole, do you remember what the unchanged subject line on all of
>>these articles was for many weeks?  "Remembering the Holocaust:  What
>>Have We Learned?"  Who made up that subject line?  *ME*!!!  Who wrote the
>>original article containg that subject line?  *ME*!!!  Self-centered?

> And who originated the initial topic of conversation?  Me.  It concerned
> ignoring the "hate baiters"... remember that one?

Let me get this straight.  I wrote the first article, but you originated the
topic?  I don't recall consulting you before writing.  And I thought you said
your point had nothing to do with *ignoring* hate baiters.  In fact, I
remember you asserting it repeatedly.  Whom are we kidding, my friend?

>>>Rich, I've expressed myself carefully and clearly.  At no time have I
>>>stooped to the lows of sophistry that you have.  [E.G., "INTROSPECTION,
>>>SOMETHING YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT CAPABLE OF", AN EXAMPLE OF NON-STOOPING]
>>>Nor have I made claims
>>>as absurd as yours e.g. "Frith desires to see us silent because he
>>>doesn't like what he hears."  No Rich.  You cannot make the truth
>>>simply because you desire something to be so.  Now please... apply some
>>>introspection and grow up yourself.
>
>>Deliberate fabrications (like "Rosen was responding to MY article!") are
>>not a form of primitive childish sophistry.  Sounds like a pretty absurd
>>claim to me.  As absurd as attempting to weasel out of your assuming Brower
>>was Jewish.

> Your claims are absurd.  And they remain just that... selfish claims.

Oh.  "Selfish" claims?  As opposed to your "selfless", "altruistic" claims?
What does this mean?  And what do you mean by sophistry if not the above crap?

>>>Your postings express a DESIRE to show my ideas as false.  "We" have
>>>failed to prove any of my ideas as false, although you have set up
>>>several straw men in a vain attempt to knock down my ideas.  Neither do
>>>I repeat my argument endlessly.  On the contrary, it is YOU who
>>>continually brings up the subject of IC's, "the Aryan Nations" and
>>>accusations concerning my supposed "prejudices."
>
>>Yeah, I bring up the subject of IC's and the Aryan Nations.  That's what
>>the article you responded to was all about, a response in which you referred
>>to me as a twit and a belligerent asshole, among other things (very "calm
>>and collected" of you).

> More lies and distortions.  I have a copy of the original article and nowhere
> does it refer to you as a belligerent asshole.  That comment came in a later
> article and was a very calm statement.

Oh, yes, indeed.  Referring to people as "belligerent asshole" in a calm
manner is apparently your trademark.  (?)

> As for the my original article, it made no attempt to reply
> to the content of your article.  So what?  I don't need you as a prime
> mover.

Let me get THIS straight, now.  You make remarks about my article, ignoring
the issues raised within it; I respond to you claiming that your point is
invalid (as others agreed) and that your statements do not accurately reflect
what I was talking about, and now YOU have the right to claim that you aren't
obliged to be accurate in your remarks about my article when making remarks
about my article?  What kind of bullshit is this?  Pretty piss poor excuses
for bullshit I'd say.  Now it's your turn to go away and grow up, Frith.
Despite your self-proclaimed "lord" status, you've apparently got a lot to
learn about how to conduct a discussion with another person.  If you want
to talk about my articles, expect to be required to reflect them accurately
or give it up.  Please.

> Again more distortions on your part Rich.  This is just the sort of
> typical "Rich Rosen pin-the-meter" attitude that I object to.  I DID
> NOT say speaking out against bigotry is excessive and counterproductive.
> I said excessive and irresponsible flaming, no matter what it's
> proposed intent, can be counterproductive.  There's a big difference.

When repeatedly asked what is called "excessive and irresponsible", you
just refer to my postings and say "there".  Why are they "excessive and
irresponsible"?  You never bother to say, as if the lord's opinion was
gospel.  And I doubt that you ever will.  Since at bottom you have offered
nothing of substance throughout.

>>>No matter how eloquently I state my case, you seem to find a way to twist
>>>it into some sort of anti-semetic negativism.  I did not say I disliked
>>>hearing someone defend their position.  If you had looked at my articles
>>>carefully you would see that I agreed with you when you stated that
>>>exposing Don Black's ideas for what they are was a worthy occupation.
>
>>"Belligerent asshole" was as "eloquent" as you got, my friend.  Again,
>>what do you almighty one consider a "proper" limit to such exposure that
>>you in your wisdom would deem acceptable and not "counterproductive".  If
>>you can't tell us, then you're left with nothing to say.  Which probably
>>won't stop you.

> Don't look to me to regulate your freedoms for you.

Ah, so here he admits he has nothing to say, no suggestions as to what may
be deemed non-counterproductive, non-excessive, non-irresponsible.  Thus
we now all know (as I have suspected all along) that he has nothing to say.
Thank you.  And goodbye.  Don't call me, and I won't call you.
-- 
Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (07/06/85)

In article <1154@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>>
>> If I were one of those people myself, Rich, then why did I go out of my
>> way to expose this particular prejudice in people?  How could I
>> possibly succumb to this prejudice and condemn it all in the same
>> sentence?  This obvious contradiction should have been a red flag to
>> you, Rich, but instead you insisted on interpreting my statements in
>> the light that best suited you.  Go back and read the excerpt again.
>> There is no reference to you or Brower as being Jewish.
>
> As I read this, I hear a man so desperate to "clear his name" that he will
> twist and shout till he's blue in the face.  You keep doing that if you like.
> It's almost fun to watch you try it.

I didn't know you could see me through the terminal, Rich.  "Twist and
shout?" "Turn blue in the face?"  Your claims do not become reality
simply because you utter them, yet you continue to utter such distortions.
There is no evidence of "a desperate attempt to clear my name."  I've
told you the truth.  If you don't like it then that's your funeral,
not mine.

As for "twisting and shouting,"  it's quite obvious that I'm cool and
collected and not really concerned at all with what your view of my
name is.  You're the one shouting at the top of his lungs about my
supposed prejudices.

> But I wasn't alone.  Brower noticed it himself.  David Harwood, one of
> the few real Christians I've come across on this net, noticed it, too,
> as did others.

And do you see them obsessivly ranting and raving like you, Rich?  No.
What can we conclude from this?  Perhaps that Richard Brower and David Harwood
know when it is advantageous to speak their piece and when it is also
advantageous to keep silent.  Let them speak for themselves Rich.... you
cannot use their voices to sanction your behavior.

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.

So don't try to substantiate your claims by affiliating yourself with
"good righteous Christians" in the way that Ronald Raygun enjoys doing.
Complimenting others so as to add their voices to yours is only one
more example of the Rich Rosen style of sophistry.

>> The truth of the matter is that I did not assume you or Brower were
>> Jewish.  You can rant and rave and arrogantly insist that I am
>> prejudiced against you all you like but the truth still remains.  If
>> you don't like this, then call me a liar but you still have no proof
>> that I am and the truth remains.
>
> Proof?  Like having read your mind?  Well, they say actions speak louder
> than words.  On the net, though, one's actions ARE one's words, and your
> words speak for themselves.  From the beginning your purpose was to complain
> that the level of criticism about neo-Nazism was too much for your taste.

This simply is not true Rich.  Go back and read the original article.
Only ONCE did I mention that the volume of criticsm was becoming
counterproductive.  I did not condemn the concept of opposing such
hate baiting, but rather offered a possible alternative.  But since you
prefer your own little world I guess you'd rather not see what articles
mean on face-value.

Besides, you go on as if my original statement was the most heinous
crime of the century.  Of course you could have very tersly commented
on my postings as Richard Brower and Eliyahu Teitz did, but instead you
decided to make it a federal issue so as to promote your own little
ideas.  This is no longer a matter of exposing wrong-doing.  You've
turned it into a witch-hunt.

> When you complained that Brower and me "whining" about it would give a bad
> image to Jews, how could you make that claim unless you yourself believed
> we were both Jewish.  "Because OTHER people would mistake Brower as Jewish?"
> Who the f**k do you think you're kidding?  After the fact excuse making of
> the shoddiest kind.  Who on earth would you expect to believe such a story?

Notice how Rich simply denies the truth with sarcasm and no
substantiation.  Why do you find it so difficult to believe that such
prejudices exist, Rich?  Are you telling me that EVERYONE on the net is
intelligent enough to not make such prejudicial mistakes?  If "large
numbers" of people were unable to see Don Black's postings for what
they truly were, as you claim, then why shouldn't they also be able to
make prejudicial assumptions as I've suggested?

I'll tell you why... because you would prefer to believe that I'm prejudiced,
and you'll twist and shout and turn blue in the face until you've proved
that I'm every anti-semetic daemon that you would like me to be.

> This joke has gone far enough.

You keep saying that over and over again... as if you believed that your
words alone could somehow silence me and this bad dream would end.  Sorry
Rich.  You have no such power over me.  Apparently you have very little
reign over yourself as well.

>> [Lord Frith]
>> Just because YOU don't think it sounds Jewish, doesn't mean it doesn't
>> sound Jewish to someone else.  Actually Brower is a very Germanic sounding
>> name to me.  Probably because I once worked with one of the old-timers in
>> the space industry named Brower.  This guy had a very thick German accent
>> and was very aryan looking too with wire-rimmed glasses....
>
> So now he changing his tune, claiming that his view is that it did sound
> Jewish.  I don't know what point you're trying to make.  It sounds like you're
> trying to cover your ass with as much protective shields as possible, even
> though you've only got two buttocks.

Rich you are indeed inept.  Let me spell it all out for you....

I did not claim that the name Brower was Jewish or Jewish sounding.  Do
you see such words above?  No.  Good.  What you see is my claim that the
name Brower sounds like a German name.  That's it.  If ANYTHING I would
equate the name Brower with an Aryan image and not with a stereotypically
Jewish one as you have asserted.

And how odd that you should equate "German" with "Jewish," Rich.  Look
at your above statement again.  You're claiming that because I think
Brower is a very Germanic name, that I also believe it is a JEWISH
name.  Since when are all Germans necessarily German Jews?  That's
exactly the sort of prejiduce that YOU were condemning ME of and now
you blithely parade such thinking before everyone as if you were immune
to any such prejudices.

Rich... you're not only inept.  You're a hypocrite as well.

>> [Lord Frith]
>> No... I believe that "others" are prejudiced because they have TOLD me they
>> recognize this particular trait and interpret it as a Jewish one.  And guess
>> what Rich... SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE JEWISH.
>>
> Oh, please!  Your "best friends"?  Another buttock-coverer that's made of
> tissue-paper.

They are NOT my "best friends."  These are your words Rich.  Can't you
carry on an argument without distorting and twisting the facts into
some bizzare surrealist sculpture?

Interestingly enough, my Jewish friends are the ones that are most keenly
aware of such prejudices because they live with them all the time.  You
should have seen them rolling in the aisles during the opening song in
"March of the Falssetos."

These stereotypes are not only the mythos of the Jewish culture but they
also reflect reality in many cases.  Maybe you don't want to recognize this
Rich for your own personal reasons, but don't try and manipulate the facts
simply because you cannot accept them.

>> Again more distortions on your part Rich.  This is just the sort of
>> typical "Rich Rosen pin-the-meter" attitude that I object to.  I DID
>> NOT say speaking out against bigotry is excessive and counterproductive.
>> I said excessive and irresponsible flaming, no matter what it's
>> proposed intent, can be counterproductive.  There's a big difference.
>
> When repeatedly asked what is called "excessive and irresponsible", you
> just refer to my postings and say "there".  Why are they "excessive and
> irresponsible"?  You never bother to say, as if the lord's opinion was
> gospel.  And I doubt that you ever will.  Since at bottom you have offered
> nothing of substance throughout.

Take a look at your current behavior.  How many articles have you
posted, thus far, in retaliation against my original posting?  To what
end?  Are you serving some good purpose with this ridicule?  Are you
sure that you're following altruistic motives... or are you perhaps
being driven by some darker obsession?  Have you actually bothered to
find out what effect your postings have?  Have you considered talking
with people via UUCP-mail instead of beating them in public?

If you'd like to discuss something with more substance then start
such a conversation.  How about the current situation in Ethiopia.
We haven't hear much from that lately.

Here's my current problem... it seems that much of what we send over to
Ehtiopia is wasted due to the lack of adequate transportation and spoilage.
The grain that we send over is simply going down the drain because the
containers open up and expose the grain to moisture letting it ferment.

What can we do about this?  Political pressure seems somewhat ineffective.
It would be a shame to cut off aid, yet I don't really wish to seem my
hard-earned dollars wasted because some Marxist regime doesn't care about
it's own people enough to feed them or to distribute food that we make
readily available.

> Thank you.  And goodbye.  Don't call me, and I won't call you.

He keeps saying that.

Yet like Herpes... he keeps coming back again and again and again...
-- 

UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root	- Lord Frith
ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO

"Money for you from the Buddah"

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/08/85)

> There is no evidence of "a desperate attempt to clear my name."  I've
> told you the truth.  If you don't like it then that's your funeral,
> not mine.
> 
> As for "twisting and shouting,"  it's quite obvious that I'm cool and
> collected and not really concerned at all with what your view of my
> name is.  You're the one shouting at the top of his lungs about my
> supposed prejudices.
> 
> And do you see them obsessivly ranting and raving like you, Rich?  No.
> What can we conclude from this?  Perhaps that Richard Brower and David Harwood
> know when it is advantageous to speak their piece and when it is also
> advantageous to keep silent.  Let them speak for themselves Rich.... you
> cannot use their voices to sanction your behavior.

And so on...  and on... Bye.
-- 
Like a sturgeon (GLURG!), caught for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr