lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeffrey William Gillette) (04/16/85)
[]
40 years ago this week the definition of the word 'inhumanity' grew
exponentially. Lest we forget that revelation of Nazi concentration
camps, six million of our brothers and sisters ruthlessly murdered, mad
scientists experimenting with living people, military entertainment
consisting of all sorts of diabolical means of torture, President Regan
has designated this week as Holocaust Remembrance Week.
Let me suggest two propositions. First, we are all victims of the
Holocaust. True, Jews were the immediate victims of Hitler's madness
(and thus fate has laid upon them the unenviable task of reminding us
continually of humankind's worst hour - the depths to which even the best
society can sink if not constantly vigilant). Yet all of us are the
victims of fear: could blacks be hauled off in the middle of the night to
prison camps without trial? Could old people watch their few possessions
confiscated or destroyed because their children (or grandchildren) were
members of the political opposition? Could university students become
the objects of spontaneous harrassment and detention by police for no
apparent reason? Not only could these things happen in America (indeed,
some already have), all these and more are happening right now in South
Africa, Lebanon, Chilie, the Philippines, Nicaragua, just to name a few
countries. The Holocaust did not stop in 1945 (just like it did not
begin in 1939). The names have changed but the story goes on in 1985 as
in 1945.
But we can not identify with the victims of the Holocaust alone. All of
us must also idenfify ourselves as the captors. I suggest that the
German people are not the most inhumane people on earth. Indeed,
"Americans" were perfectly capable of exterminating many thousands of our
native forerunners. Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese have all had their
turn at devising spinechilling methods of torture. Even Jews have been
granted the opportunity to display ample inhumanity to palestinians,
consigning them to refugee camps hardly better than prison camps. The
danger is not that all of us have a little Hitler inside waiting to get
out. The Holocaust only needed one Hitler. The danger is that we, like
the millions of "innocent" German bystanders will continue to close our
eyes to the unplesant suffering of "others."
How can we remember the Holocaust? Certainly by reminding ourselves of
its victims and honoring their suffering. Likewise we can reminding
ourselves that this could be us if we are not ever vigilant. But perhaps
the best way to remember the Holocaust is to recognize its ugly face
today in 1985, to see its victims among our kin and friends around the
world, and to become involved in one (or more) of the many efforts to
stop the torture, violation, and murder of whole classes and races of
people.
Our beloved president decided not to visit a concentration camp during
his coming stay in Germany. Some have condemned him for that. I do not
criticize him. The reason is, with the givernment of American supporting
the Holocaust in South Africa, Chilie, the Philippines, Guatemala, and
(until last week) the Sudan, to pay lip service to America's "humanity"
by visiting the scene of a death camp would be a supreme act of
hypocrisy. What have we learned from the Holocaust? For too many of us
the answer is nothing.
Jeffrey William Gillette duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke Universityrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/19/85)
> How can we remember the Holocaust? Certainly by reminding ourselves of > its victims and honoring their suffering. Likewise we can reminding > ourselves that this could be us if we are not ever vigilant. But perhaps > the best way to remember the Holocaust is to recognize its ugly face > today in 1985, to see its victims among our kin and friends around the > world, and to become involved in one (or more) of the many efforts to > stop the torture, violation, and murder of whole classes and races of > people. > > Our beloved president decided not to visit a concentration camp during > his coming stay in Germany. Some have condemned him for that. I do not > criticize him. The reason is, with the givernment of American supporting > the Holocaust in South Africa, Chilie, the Philippines, Guatemala, and > (until last week) the Sudan, to pay lip service to America's "humanity" > by visiting the scene of a death camp would be a supreme act of > hypocrisy. What have we learned from the Holocaust? For too many of us > the answer is nothing. [GILLETTE] I'd guess that Reagan visiting a Nazi death camp might indeed be the epitome of hypocrisy. Such things are still worth acknowledging DESPITE the efforts of some to simply put it behind us as if it isn't likely to happen again, and the efforts of others who would simply ignore the signs that it COULD happen again and who would malign those who would point this out. An update on Identity Christianity for those who care: it's been reported that IC's are very active in recruiting in the midwest these days. Their current "line" to today's farmers: "It's those Jewish bankers who are foreclosing on your mortgages and taking away your farms." Lest you say "Oh, no one would believe that", recall those who still believe that we (Jews) have horns. Or those who didn't see Don Black for what he was until it was staring them in the face. When they're staring you in the face, it's too goddamned late. Today is Yom Ha-Sho'ah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. A mythical day made up by Jews to commemorate something that never happened. And never will. -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
amra@ihu1n.UUCP (s. aldrich) (04/19/85)
> > How can we remember the Holocaust? Certainly by reminding ourselves of > > its victims and honoring their suffering. Likewise we can reminding > > ourselves that this could be us if we are not ever vigilant. But perhaps > > the best way to remember the Holocaust is to recognize its ugly face > > today in 1985, to see its victims among our kin and friends around the > > world, and to become involved in one (or more) of the many efforts to > > stop the torture, violation, and murder of whole classes and races of > > people. > > > > Our beloved president decided not to visit a concentration camp during > > his coming stay in Germany. Some have condemned him for that. I do not > > criticize him. The reason is, with the givernment of American supporting > > the Holocaust in South Africa, Chilie, the Philippines, Guatemala, and > > (until last week) the Sudan, to pay lip service to America's "humanity" > > by visiting the scene of a death camp would be a supreme act of > > hypocrisy. What have we learned from the Holocaust? For too many of us > > the answer is nothing. [GILLETTE] > > I'd guess that Reagan visiting a Nazi death camp might indeed be the epitome > of hypocrisy. Such things are still worth acknowledging DESPITE the efforts > of some to simply put it behind us as if it isn't likely to happen again, and > the efforts of others who would simply ignore the signs that it COULD happen > again and who would malign those who would point this out. > > An update on Identity Christianity for those who care: it's been reported > that IC's are very active in recruiting in the midwest these days. Their > current "line" to today's farmers: "It's those Jewish bankers who are > foreclosing on your mortgages and taking away your farms." Lest you > say "Oh, no one would believe that", recall those who still believe that > we (Jews) have horns. Or those who didn't see Don Black for what he was > until it was staring them in the face. When they're staring you in the face, > it's too goddamned late. > > Today is Yom Ha-Sho'ah, Holocaust Remembrance Day. A mythical day made > up by Jews to commemorate something that never happened. And never will. > -- > "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr {..."I Get On My Knees And Pray...We Don't Get Fooled Again!"} RIGHT ON RICH! I'm behind you 100% on this. When Don Black began posting his "RACIAL/RELIGIOUS DIATRIBES", there were only a few who ACTIVELY OPPOSED his Hate-Baiting! Those who did counter Black's "honest questions" have been continually rebuked by a good number of Christians. As Rich points out, there have been MANY RECENT REPORTS of groups connected with the Identity Christian movement(s), and/or their off-shoots. Reports of a group known as "The Order" have come to light in Arkansas and SEVERAL OTHER STATES! Some Groups plan "CROSS-BURNINGS" on Sunday April 20th to honor the memory of Adolph Hitler for cryin' out loud! This activity is becoming even more prevelant in the USA EVERY DAY! I plan to post something in the near future about the recent "REVIVAL" of such groups in the USA, and else- -where. Personally, I'm HORRIFIED by the "STRANGLE-HOLD" these type of groups, many of whom operate under the "guise" of Christianity, are gaining in OUR society. From The Atoms Currently Associated As: Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihlpa!amra) <== NOTE "NEW" ADDRESS PLEASE "..Stormtroopers Comin' And You Better Be Prepared, Ain't No Time To Lose!" P.S. Why have the ANTI-Mormon, ANTI-Secular, ANTI-Homosexual, ANTI-ETC. people been so SILENT REGARDING Black and/or Right-Wing "CHRISTIAN" Neo-Nazis?
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/23/85)
> RIGHT ON RICH! I'm behind you 100% on this. When Don Black began posting > his "RACIAL/RELIGIOUS DIATRIBES", there were only a few who ACTIVELY OPPOSED > his Hate-Baiting! Those who did counter Black's "honest questions" have > been continually rebuked by a good number of Christians. There is another way to "oppose" hate-baiting and that is to ignore his words. A response from you is just what the "hate-baiter" wants to fuel disention. To ignore his words renders them just so many useless bytes. Of course, you might argue that without a direct response, his hateful diatribe will become a fanatical hate organization and the ignorant human flotsam will cling to his cause. But here again it isn't the words that are doing the harm... it's the people that are goaded into taking his words to heart. People will believe what they want to believe. When hate like this gets the sanction of the state or of the education system... THAT'S when you start getting twitchy. You would seem to be saying that you must vigorously "oppose" all such potential Adolph Hitlers. But trying to police the social, political and religious ideas of everyone before they become a menace seems a bit hasty. Until such time that Mr. Black aquires a following (like that group in Arkansas wouldn't worry called "The Group") I wouldn't worry much about his rantilizations. Too much time has already been devoted to this guy's sick viewpoints. I do agree, however, that if Mr. Black's beliefs follow his reputation, then he certainly needs a good swift intellectual kick up side the head. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO Or as Jabba the Hut would say, "Brrrruuuuuurrrrrrrpppppp!"
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (04/25/85)
In article <885@trwatf.UUCP> root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes: >There is another way to "oppose" hate-baiting and that is to ignore his >words. A response from you is just what the "hate-baiter" wants to fuel >disention. To ignore his words renders them just so many useless bytes. Sure, but the "ignore it and it might go away" philosophy has proven to be ineffective every time it has been tried in this century. Remember Hitler's rise to power with very similar ideals. Identity Christianity types are spreading throughout the middle of our country *now*. Whether they are spreading faster than more enlightened philosophies is open to question, but they certainly make more noise (and stockpile automatic weapons). When and if you decide to respond, it may be that your responce is to late to have any effect except getting you tossed into the concentration camps with the rest of us. >Of course, you might argue that without a direct response, his hateful >diatribe will become a fanatical hate organization and the ignorant human >flotsam will cling to his cause. But here again it isn't the words >that are doing the harm... it's the people that are goaded into >taking his words to heart. People will believe what they want to believe. >When hate like this gets the sanction of the state or of the education >system... THAT'S when you start getting twitchy. Please note that hate like this has semi-official recognition from the state *now* with the close ties that RR has with Jerry Falwell's crowd. >You would seem to be saying that you must vigorously "oppose" all such >potential Adolph Hitlers. But trying to police the social, political >and religious ideas of everyone before they become a menace seems a bit >hasty. Until such time that Mr. Black aquires a following (like that >group in Arkansas wouldn't worry called "The Group") I wouldn't worry >much about his rantilizations. Too much time has already been devoted >to this guy's sick viewpoints. > >I do agree, however, that if Mr. Black's beliefs follow his reputation, >then he certainly needs a good swift intellectual kick up side the head. Vigorously oppose is indeed what we should be doing with these ideas of Mr. Don Black. Constantly. Loudly. "When they came for the Jews, I did nothing, for I was not a Jew... When they came for me there was nobody else left." -- Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/27/85)
>> In article <885@trwatf.UUCP> root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes: >> There is another way to "oppose" hate-baiting and that is to ignore his >> words. A response from you is just what the "hate-baiter" wants to fuel >> disention. To ignore his words renders them just so many useless bytes. > > Sure, but the "ignore it and it might go away" philosophy has proven to be > ineffective every time it has been tried in this century. Remember Hitler's > rise to power with very similar ideals. Different situation entirely. What is this "it" that might go away? it doesn't exist yet, and until there does exist a bonefide threat I see no reason to waste my time overreacting to every tin-plated little facist with a radical ideology. They're kind are a dime a dozen. This doesn't mean blinding one's self to a realistic threat, neither does it mean foaming at the mouth every time someone makes an anti-semetic remark. It means examining the situation calmly and responding (if a repsonse is warrented) in a mature fashion. Thermal detonators should do the job ;-) You can't condemn Don Black for crimes against humanity BEFORE the fact because so far he hasn't actually DONE anything. > Identity Christianity types are spreading throughout the middle of our > country *now*. Whether they are spreading faster than more enlightened > philosophies is open to question, but they certainly make more noise > (and stockpile automatic weapons). Now you're just frothing at the mouth. No fanatical minority is going to throw anyone into concentration camps in this country. And how odd that you should think that the Identity Christian movement will start putting people in concentration camps. Public executions too I'll bet. Let's not forget the torture dungeons. This is an exagerated and radical view in itself and, like your response to Don Black, an overreaction. > When and if you decide to respond, it may be that your responce is to > late to have any effect except getting you tossed into the > concentration camps with the rest of us. When I repsond it will be towards a real, and not potential, threat. If "they" want to throw me into a concentration camp then I'll be waiting for "them" with an AK-7. > >Of course, you might argue that without a direct response, his hateful > >diatribe will become a fanatical hate organization and the ignorant human > >flotsam will cling to his cause. But here again it isn't the words > >that are doing the harm... it's the people that are goaded into > >taking his words to heart. People will believe what they want to believe. > >When hate like this gets the sanction of the state or of the education > >system... THAT'S when you start getting twitchy. > > Please note that hate like this has semi-official recognition from the state > *now* with the close ties that RR has with Jerry Falwell's crowd. If this were a dictatorship I might be worried. So far, Ronnie's relationship with the fundementalist right has been purely political. The Jerry Falwell crowd may be able to sway the outward appearance of politics, but they haven't really touched the inner workings of government. Close ties are just that... close ties and nothing more. >> I do agree, however, that if Mr. Black's beliefs follow his reputation, >> then he certainly needs a good swift intellectual kick up side the head. > > Vigorously oppose is indeed what we should be doing with these ideas > of Mr. Don Black. Constantly. Loudly. The best place to vigorously oppose Don Black is within yourself. Understand his position well enough to know it for what it is, and educate (not indoctrinate, but educate) others so that they will know his flawed and hateful thinking for what it is. That is the best response you can make. What most of you have overlooked is that the wrong done by Don Black is not in his articles, but in the minds of the people that actually believe what he says. That's where the real front exists. You can't eliminate hate groups by censoring or "opposing" their views in a shouting match. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Markland needs women!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/28/85)
> There is another way to "oppose" hate-baiting and that is to ignore his > words. A response from you is just what the "hate-baiter" wants to fuel > disention. To ignore his words renders them just so many useless bytes. > [LORD FRITH] Like they ignored Hitler. > Of course, you might argue that without a direct response, his hateful > diatribe will become a fanatical hate organization and the ignorant human > flotsam will cling to his cause. But here again it isn't the words > that are doing the harm... it's the people that are goaded into > taking his words to heart. People will believe what they want to believe. > When hate like this gets the sanction of the state or of the education > system... THAT'S when you start getting twitchy. Ah, I see. Once it's too late, then we can start worrying. Sorry, I don't buy it. -- "Does the body rule the mind or does the mind rule the body? I dunno." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (05/02/85)
> ...Identity Christianity types are > spreading throughout the middle of our country *now*. Whether they are > spreading faster than more enlightened philosophies is open to question, > but they certainly make more noise (and stockpile automatic weapons). When > and if you decide to respond, it may be that your responce is to late to > have any effect except getting you tossed into the concentration camps with > the rest of us. You know what thought really scares me... All these Fundamentalists who are supporting Israel and Jews for Jesus because of their "End of Days" philosophy. They expect Jesus's second coming, so they support Israel as a free Jewish nation, and the preverbial "conversion of the Jews". If he doesn't arrive, will the Jews be made scape-goats, because it was our fault for not converting? How will Graham save face? Will the 700 club start pushing the Neo-Nazi cause??? -- Micha Berger 2525 Amsterdam Ave. Suite M406 NY, NY 10033 (212) 781-0756 {philabs|cucard|pegasus|rocky2}!aecom!berger
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (05/03/85)
>> There is another way to "oppose" hate-baiting and that is to ignore his >> words. A response from you is just what the "hate-baiter" wants to fuel >> disention. To ignore his words renders them just so many useless bytes. >> [LORD FRITH] > > Like they ignored Hitler. You're not being clever Rich. Don Black is not another Adolph Hitler. Where are his legions of followers? Where are the brownshirts and swastikas? When was the last time Don Black murdered his political opponents to gain a seat in public office or the sanction of the state? Do you see an immenent physical threat from his postings? It's all in your childish imaginations. So go ahead and let yourselves be jerked around by every net.neo.nazi with a blatently anti-semetic ideology. > Ah, I see.... No you don't. That's why you come off like such a flaming belligerent idiot. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Markland needs women!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/06/85)
>>> There is another way to "oppose" hate-baiting and that is to ignore his >>> words. A response from you is just what the "hate-baiter" wants to fuel >>> disention. To ignore his words renders them just so many useless bytes. >>> [LORD FRITH] >> >> Like they ignored Hitler. > You're not being clever Rich. Don Black is not another Adolph Hitler. > [LORD FRITH] No, he impressed me (from the writing) as a lame insecure little lackey. > Where are his legions of followers? Where are the brownshirts and > swastikas? When was the last time Don Black murdered his political > opponents to gain a seat in public office or the sanction of the > state? Do you see an immenent physical threat from his postings? Obviously you've never heard of the Aryan Nations, or the numerous other neo-Nazo groups springing up in all parts of the country. Do you know one way that modern American neo-Nazis work on increasing their membership? They "preach" to disowned farmers that the "rich Jews who run the banks" are the ones who are taking their farms away! Pretty slick, huh? No threat, you say. Hmm, is it only a threat, sir, once they've already made inroads into taking over? I'd rather have a little more foresight (and hindsight, learning some lessons from history) than you, my friend. > It's all in your childish imaginations. So go ahead and let yourselves > be jerked around by every net.neo.nazi with a blatently anti-semetic > ideology. OK, I will. I think it's worth it to show such people for what they are. Apparently you don't. Apparently because you either don't care, don't notice a longterm threat from such people, or feel you have nothing to lose so as not to worry about Jews and homosexuals and anyone else who doesn't go along. I suppose you never heard of Pastor Niemoller. > That's why you come off like such a flaming belligerent > idiot. As opposed to those who agree with you, who are of course enlightened, wise thinkers. In *your* flaming belligerent eyes... Good day, sir. -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (05/16/85)
>> Where are his legions of followers? Where are the brownshirts and >> swastikas? When was the last time Don Black murdered his political >> opponents to gain a seat in public office or the sanction of the >> state? Do you see an immenent physical threat from his postings? > Obviously you've never heard of the Aryan Nations, or the numerous other > neo-Nazo groups springing up in all parts of the country. Do you know one > way that modern American neo-Nazis work on increasing their membership? > They "preach" to disowned farmers that the "rich Jews who run the banks" > are the ones who are taking their farms away! Pretty slick, huh? No, pretty ineffective I think. Many farmers would give this kind of "preacher" the boot right out the door. But then Don Black isn't going door-to-door inciting farmers to fire-bomb jewish controlled financial institutions is he? If you COULD find a causal link between his postings and some terrorist activity you might have something. > No threat, you say. No threat from his postings, that's right. Care to point out a single direct physical manifestation of Don Black's postings? Thus far the lot of you have used entirely unrelated incidents and analogies, but not one scrap of evidence has been presented to show that Black *himself* has posed any kind of threat with his net-traffic. Until such time he can be ignored. > Hmm, is it only a threat, sir.... My such a haughty tone of voice we have. I'm just trembling before your awsome righteousness. > ...once they've already made inroads into taking over? I'd rather > have a little more foresight (and hindsight, learning some lessons from > history) than you, my friend. And just HOW is Don Black supposedly going to "take over" the net, eh? Keep the discussion in context Rich... you're rapidly proving that you don't really have anything to say concerning Don Black. You will also note that I DID advocate education and social awareness as the means to countering such neo-nincompoops... not the LOUD and SHRILL attitude that you and others have displayed; a segment of my article you conveniently discarded. Awareness of history does not mean screaming "jew-hater" at the top of your lungs and then additionally hanging a sign that says "appeaser" around MY neck. > It's all in your childish imaginations. So go ahead and let yourselves > be jerked around by every net.neo.nazi with a blatently anti-semetic > ideology. > OK, I will. I think it's worth it to show such people for what they are. Yes it IS worth showing such people for what they are. But what do you think you can accomplish by brow-beating him in response? Do you REALLY think we can't see what Don Black is from his postings? It's not as if what he said was subtle or anything. Commentary from you and the legions of the net is hardly necessary to expose Don Black for what he is. Especially the LOUD and SHRILL catharsis' we've seen recently. > Apparently you don't. Apparently because you either don't care, don't > notice a longterm threat from such people, or feel you have nothing to > lose so as not to worry about Jews and homosexuals and anyone else who > doesn't go along. I suppose you never heard of Pastor Niemoller. There is no long term threat to the network from Don Black that your LOUD and SHRILL postings will solve. In essence you folks are just providing yourselves with a nice little outlet for your hate. Rich, here, takes it a step further by distorting my psotings and flaming at me as if I were some kind of Munich-style appeaser a' la "Peace in our time"... god what a silly and pathetic image that seems to us today. >> That's why you come off like such a flaming belligerent idiot. > As opposed to those who agree with you, who are of course enlightened, > wise thinkers.... You are welcomed to believe anything you like Rich. Few things are actually true, however. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO Nasha Lutcha!
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/01/85)
> 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] First of all, I wasn't aware that Brower, whom you were responding to above, WAS Jewish. It seems that you are among those who hold this stereotype you speak of: if he's an "obsessive loud-mouthed whiner complaining about bigotry", he must be Jewish. Given that it would seem that you hold to a stereotype that people like Black will exploit to turn people into anti-Semites (read my article in net.abortion/flame on how persuasion now works as an "art"), I'd say you are unequivocally unqualified to make statements about what is EXECESIVE in fighting bigotry. >>> Do you REALLY think we can't see what Don Black is from his postings? >>> It's not as if what he said was subtle or anything. >> Hitler wasn't very suttle either. > I said it to Rich and I'll say it to you... "You're NOT being clever." > If you have to resort to such simplistic and obvious arguments then you'd > better suspect something is wrong with what you're saying. Don Black is > not Adolph Hitler. He isn't gaining a following using the same political > methods and there is no way that he could gain any such power ON THE NET. If his methods and his words gain one follower ("Hmmm, I never 'realized' that about the Jews..."), the damage is done. If his methods and words can be disposed of and shown for what they are, perhaps others will not follow in his bootsteps. > Hitler DID have far more subtle tools at his disposal. How subtle can > Don Black be when his only tool is a public bulletin board? Not very, > when his arguments are similar to "what death camps?" And yet people thought that "argument" was a sincere question. How far away is he, in that case, from swaying the listener? > You twit. It's obvious that I'm NOT repsonding to Don Black's > articles. I suggested ONE alternative to handle his postings which > would be beneficial to THE ENTIRE NetNews community. People like you > and Rich Rosen have a lot of gaul insisting that I confine myself to > YOUR subject matter. Does that mean YOU have a lot of france (i.e., "gaul") insisting that we confine ourselves to YOUR subject matter? This is not the first article is which you've responded to others referring to them as "people like you and Rich Rosen". Obviously I'm not alone in concern and vigilance about this subject. Why do you continue to insist that your singular desires to limit the voices of others on this matter be adhered to? -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (06/07/85)
">>>>" & ">>"Lord Firth writes. ">>>"I wrote. ">"Rich Rosen writes. >> We're talking about Don Black's threat to the net. You are talking about Don Black's threat to the net. Rich Rosen, others, and I are talking about the threat posed by organizations composed of people like Don Black to the real world where men and women are being killed by people with these attitudes. >> 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. >First of all, I wasn't aware that Brower, whom you were responding to >above, WAS Jewish. For the record, I am not Jewish either by religion nor by ancestery. Further details on what I am (race, religion, age, etc) will be provided via mail by request only. >It seems that you are among those who hold this >stereotype you speak of: if he's an "obsessive loud-mouthed whiner complaining >about bigotry", he must be Jewish. Given that it would seem that you hold >to a stereotype that people like Black will exploit to turn people into >anti-Semites (read my article in net.abortion/flame on how persuasion now >works as an "art"), I'd say you are unequivocally unqualified to make >statements about what is EXECESIVE in fighting bigotry. Amen. >>>> It's not as if what he said was subtle or anything. >>> Hitler wasn't very subtle either. >> I said it to Rich and I'll say it to you... "You're NOT being clever." >> If you have to resort to such simplistic and obvious arguments then you'd >> better suspect something is wrong with what you're saying. Don Black is >> not Adolph Hitler. He isn't gaining a following using the same political >> methods and there is no way that he could gain any such power ON THE NET. Are you saying arguments have to take up 100's of lines and be real complex to be useful? Otherwise Rich Rosen answered that objection below. >If his methods and his words gain one follower the damage is done. >> You twit. It's obvious that I'm NOT repsonding to Don Black's >> articles. I suggested ONE alternative to handle his postings which >> would be beneficial to THE ENTIRE NetNews community. People like you >> and Rich Rosen have a lot of gaul insisting that I confine myself to >> YOUR subject matter. Appearently your mind streches no further than the screen in front of your face. Wake up! There is a real world out there that is a whole lot more important than that green screen. Some of us are interested in discussing that real world. Actually, if you are not discussing that outside world, your postings have no relevance to what I wish to discuss. I do not mean to imply by that statement that you cannot/should not post whatever you desire to, merely that it has no connection to what I am discussing, and the subject line should perhaps be changed to reflect the fact that you are discussing an entirely different subject. Please (if you are not to busy flaming me, and if you are interested) that in the US of A, today, there are right wing groups arming to the the teeth gathering followers, and preaching racial/sexual/cultural (pick any or all) hatred. Don Black seems to support (partially or completely) these groups. He has posted on this forum (with what I believe to be malice) propaganda supporting racial/sexual/cultural/religious bigotry. I have in the past and will in the future vocally oppose any such propaganda anywhere that I see it. If you do not wish to participate in such opposition, I grant that as your right. If you wish to support such propaganda, I will oppose you also. If you do not wish to have your eyeballs assulted by such opposition, please use the "n" key on your terminal when you see my articles appear. Best wishes, Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
root@trwatf.UUCP (06/10/85)
In article <5314@fortune.UUCP> brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) writes: >> [Richad Brower] >> We're talking about Don Black's threat to the net. > > You are talking about Don Black's threat to the net. Rich Rosen, > others, and I are talking about the threat posed by organizations > composed of people like Don Black to the real world where men and women > are being killed by people with these attitudes. And why do you insist upon replying to me about the real world when my original article dealt ONLY with the net? Because like Rich Rosen, you aren't satisified with the domain I was discussing... you want to hammer your own ideas home with no concern for my article, although that is what you claim to reply to. > [Richard Brower] > For the record, I am not Jewish either by religion nor by ancestery. > Further details on what I am (race, religion, age, etc) will be provided > via mail by request only. Fine... except your religious beliefs are not in question here. >> ["Rich" Rosen] >> It seems that you are among those who hold this stereotype you speak >> of: if he's an "obsessive loud-mouthed whiner complaining about >> bigotry", he must be Jewish. Given that it would seem that you hold to >> a stereotype that people like Black will exploit to turn people into >> anti-Semites (read my article in net.abortion/flame on how persuasion >> now works as an "art"), I'd say you are unequivocally unqualified to >> make statements about what is EXECESIVE in fighting bigotry. > Amen. And so now you (Rich Rosen) want to silence MY freedom of speech... I see. It's strange that you should agree with this statement Mr. Brower since you don't seem to recognize that Rich is applying the same sort of sophistry here that he condemns. First Rich tells us what seems to be true (actually a statement of his own views) and then makes a cast-in-concrete conclusion, based on his original false premises. He's just beating to death his own straw men. >>> [Lord Frith] >>> You twit. It's obvious that I'm NOT repsonding to Don Black's >>> articles. I suggested ONE alternative to handle his postings which >>> would be beneficial to THE ENTIRE NetNews community. People like you >>> and Rich Rosen have a lot of gaul insisting that I confine myself to >>> YOUR subject matter. > [Richard Brower] > Appearently your mind streches no further than the screen in front of your > face. Wake up! There is a real world out there that is a whole lot more > important than that green screen. Some of us are interested in discussing > that real world. Do NOT claim to be replying to my articles or my thoughts when in fact you are merely interesting in furthering your own views of the real world. If you want to discuss the real-world, start a new discussion or change the current thrust of this one, but DO NOT claim that I am myopic because my original article does not address a domain it was never intending to address. > [Richard Brower] > Actually, if you are not discussing that outside world, > your postings have no relevance to what I wish to discuss. I do not mean > to imply by that statement that you cannot/should not post whatever you > desire to, merely that it has no connection to what I am discussing, and > the subject line should perhaps be changed to reflect the fact that you > are discussing an entirely different subject. But wait... YOU'RE the one who was replying to Lord Frith's original article were you not? Let's include this one.... > [Rich Brower] > Please (if you are not to busy flaming me, and if you are interested) that > in the US of A, today, there are right wing groups arming to the the teeth > gathering followers, and preaching racial/sexual/cultural (pick any or all) > hatred. Don Black seems to support (partially or completely) these groups. > He has posted on this forum (with what I believe to be malice) propaganda > supporting racial/sexual/cultural/religious bigotry. I have in the past > and will in the future vocally oppose any such propaganda anywhere that I > see it. > > Best wishes, > Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems > {ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower -- 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) (06/12/85)
>> [Richard Brower] >> For the record, I am not Jewish either by religion nor by ancestery. >> Further details on what I am (race, religion, age, etc) will be provided >> via mail by request only. > > Fine... except your religious beliefs are not in question here. [FRITH] Oh? Then why did you make the statement that Brower's speaking out on neo- Nazis was giving a bad image to Jews as rabblerousers? See below for more discussion of Frith's assumption that because Brower spoke out, he must have]been Jewish, and thus leant to others the impression of Jews as loudmouths (or whatever term he used). >>> ["Rich" Rosen] >>> It seems that you are among those who hold this stereotype you speak >>> of: if he's an "obsessive loud-mouthed whiner complaining about >>> bigotry", he must be Jewish. Given that it would seem that you hold to >>> a stereotype that people like Black will exploit to turn people into >>> anti-Semites (read my article in net.abortion/flame on how persuasion >>> now works as an "art"), I'd say you are unequivocally unqualified to >>> make statements about what is EXECESIVE in fighting bigotry. [BROWER] >> Amen. [BROWER] > And so now you (Rich Rosen) want to silence MY freedom of speech... I see. Funny, I don't see any statement that seeks to silence Mr. Frith's freedom of speech. On the contrary, what has been done is to show that the basis Frith has for judging what is excessive in fighting bigotry is tainted by his own little prejudices. The way I see it, you're still very free to speak out, only I've pointed out how many grains of salt your speeches on this subject should be taken with. > It's strange that you should agree with this statement Mr. Brower since > you don't seem to recognize that Rich is applying the same sort of sophistry > here that he condemns. First Rich tells us what seems to be true (actually > a statement of his own views) and then makes a cast-in-concrete conclusion, > based on his original false premises. He's just beating to death his own > straw men. Which straw man is this? The fact that you assumed that Brower, because he engaged in "loudmouthed whining", must have been Jewish (an assumption you made quite clearly when you told him he was giving a bad impression of Jews to others), bespeaks some of your own innate prejudices. >>>> You twit. It's obvious that I'm NOT repsonding to Don Black's >>>> articles. I suggested ONE alternative to handle his postings which >>>> would be beneficial to THE ENTIRE NetNews community. People like you >>>> and Rich Rosen have a lot of gaul insisting that I confine myself to >>>> YOUR subject matter. >> [Richard Brower] >> Appearently your mind streches no further than the screen in front of your >> face. Wake up! There is a real world out there that is a whole lot more >> important than that green screen. Some of us are interested in discussing >> that real world. > Do NOT claim to be replying to my articles or my thoughts when in fact > you are merely interesting in furthering your own views of the real > world. If you want to discuss the real-world, start a new discussion or > change the current thrust of this one, but DO NOT claim that I am > myopic because my original article does not address a domain it was > never intending to address. You feel that "silence" would benefit "the entire netnews community". Others among us feel otherwise, and find your position shortsighted, and have shown reasons why. If you can't accept that, if you can't understand the effect that propaganda of the neo-Nazi sort is having on this country, if you'd rather see silence than enlightenment on the topic, quite frankly I have to wonder why. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (06/17/85)
In article <977@trwatf.UUCP> root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) writes: >Because like Rich Rosen, you >aren't satisified with the domain I was discussing... you want to hammer >your own ideas home with no concern for my article, although that is what >you claim to reply to. The title of this article has been "Re: Remembering the Holocaust: What have we learned?", since before I started on the subject. >Fine... except your religious beliefs are not in question here. You refered to me incorrectly as being a Jew. >And so now you (Rich Rosen) want to silence MY freedom of speech... I see. >First Rich tells us what seems to be true (actually >a statement of his own views) and then makes a cast-in-concrete conclusion, >based on his original false premises. He's just beating to death his own >straw men. First, I didn't see anything here that indicated RR wanting you to quit posting per se. You are the person who refered to me as a Jew with no evidence. And tried to equate Jewishness with being loud and ranting. Since the rest of your article goes off to discuss how much I am off the subject and adds nothing of substance, I'll just say, read the subject line. R. Brower
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (06/18/85)
In article <1073@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: > > Oh? Then why did you make the statement that Brower's speaking out on neo- > Nazis was giving a bad image to Jews as rabblerousers? See below for more > discussion of Frith's assumption that because Brower spoke out, he must have > been Jewish, and thus leant to others the impression of Jews as loudmouths (or > whatever term he used). I never said that Richard Brower was Jewish. Show us the quote that proves I did. > On the contrary, what has been done is to show that the basis Frith > has for judging what is excessive in fighting bigotry is tainted by his own > little prejudices. Nothing of the sort has been shown. Claims do not make reality. Why don't you substantiate your words with fact Rich? >> It's strange that you should agree with this statement Mr. Brower since >> you don't seem to recognize that Rich is applying the same sort of sophistry >> here that he condemns. First Rich tells us what seems to be true (actually >> a statement of his own views) and then makes a cast-in-concrete conclusion, >> based on his original false premises. He's just beating to death his own >> straw men. > > Which straw man is this? The fact that you assumed that Brower, because he > engaged in "loudmouthed whining", must have been Jewish (an assumption you > made quite clearly when you told him he was giving a bad impression of Jews > to others), bespeaks some of your own innate prejudices. Fact? Your flagrent disregard for reality bespeaks your inability to speak the truth or to present a view without bias or distortion of the facts, Rich. These "little prejudices" "assumptions" and "innate prejudices" all exist in your own imagination. When will you learn to stop embellishing other people's remarks with YOUR OWN biases? How many times do we have to listen to you deride others with this kind of shallow sophistry? I guess as long as there's a network. Got a girl Rich? Does she enjoy doing this too? I'm sure you make a lovely couple. >> [Lord Frith] >> Do NOT claim to be replying to my articles or my thoughts when in fact >> you are merely interesting in furthering your own views of the real >> world. If you want to discuss the real-world, start a new discussion or >> change the current thrust of this one, but DO NOT claim that I am >> myopic because my original article does not address a domain it was >> never intending to address. > > You feel that "silence" would benefit "the entire netnews community". No... I feel that RESPONSIBILITY would benefit the usenet community. That's a far cry from demanding silence. Why do you insist on forcing your selfish opinions into the framework of other's words, Rich? This is called sophistry and it's the worst kind of lie that there is. > that propaganda of the neo-Nazi sort is having on this country, if you'd > rather see silence than enlightenment on the topic, quite frankly I have to > wonder why. Quite frankly I wonder why you haven't recognized my point. Hasn't it occured to you that you're constantly beating your head against a brick wall by repeating the same litany to me over and over and over and over again. Instead of condemning me you should listen and try to understand. But no... you'll never learn. -- 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)
>>Oh? Then why did you make the statement that Brower's speaking out on neo- >>Nazis was giving a bad image to Jews as rabblerousers? See below for more >>discussion of Frith's assumption that because Brower spoke out, he must have >>been Jewish, and thus leant to others the impression of Jews as loudmouths (or >>whatever term he used). [ROSEN] > I never said that Richard Brower was Jewish. Show us the quote that > proves I did. [FRITH] >>On the contrary, what has been done is to show that the basis Frith >>has for judging what is excessive in fighting bigotry is tainted by his own >>little prejudices. > Nothing of the sort has been shown. Claims do not make reality. Why don't > you substantiate your words with fact Rich? > Fact? Your flagrent disregard for reality bespeaks your inability to speak > the truth or to present a view without bias or distortion of the > facts, Rich. I quote here from Frith's article 942@trwatf.UUCP, in which he responds to Richard Brower: > 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 have claimed that Brower's "attitude" would confirm others' notions about Jews unless you yourself were assuming that he was Jewish? (Please don't bother responding. I'm sure you'll have a good answer, similar in tone to this: > These "little prejudices" "assumptions" and "innate prejudices" all > exist in your own imagination. When will you learn to stop > embellishing other people's remarks with YOUR OWN biases? How many > times do we have to listen to you deride others with this kind of > shallow sophistry? I guess as long as there's a network. Got a girl > Rich? Does she enjoy doing this too? I'm sure you make a lovely > couple. I think I documented above where my "assumptions" come from. As for your extremely clever repartee, it just so happens that one of my closest friends *is* a professional dominatrix. If you're really interested in abuse, I'm sure it can be arranged. You seem to thrive on it. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (06/19/85)
In article <5328@fortune.UUCP> brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) writes: >> [Lord Frith] >> Because like Rich Rosen, you aren't satisified with the domain I was >> discussing... you want to hammer your own ideas home with no concern >> for my article, although that is what you claim to reply to. > The title of this article has been "Re: Remembering the Holocaust: What > have we learned?", since before I started on the subject. The title of an article does not necessarily moderate it's content. Just because someone else decides to change (or retain) the title of an article, do you think this adequate justification to condemn me for things I didn't say? Or to condemn me for subject matter I never covered and don't intend to? If you don't think the subject line appropriate then choose another. > First, I didn't see anything here that indicated RR wanting you to quit > posting per se. Neither do I see anything in my articles demanding the end to freedom of speech on the net or explicitly labeling you as a Jew. Where is the evidence to support the following assertions by Mr. Rosen?..... > [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. > You are the person who refered to me as a Jew with no evidence. And > tried to equate Jewishness with being loud and ranting. I never.. ever... EVER... claimed that you were a Jew. Please GO BACK and READ the article CAREFULLY. I claimed that other people on the net DO perceive Jews as being a boat-load of loud-mouthed whiners. This is a said fact... but that's the way the world is. I did not refer to you soley in this paragraph. Note that I said "people like you and Rich Rosen." Had I meant "Jews like you and Rich Rosen" I would have said so. > Since the rest of your article goes off to discuss how much I am off the > subject and adds nothing of substance, I'll just say, read the subject line. Non-sequitur. In this case I'll simply change the subject line instead of the content of the article. You and Rich Rosen do not dictate the subject matter of articles via your choice of a subject line. Nor can you moderate my freedom to choose whatever topic of conversation interests me simply because the topic was - long ago - about the Holocaust. -- 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 (Rich Rosen) (06/24/85)
> The title of an article does not necessarily moderate it's content. The subject matter of an article IS its content. When you responded to my article, you were responding to its content. If YOU chose to change the subject and not address points I had made from the beginning, then it is you who is guilty of switching the issues around. If you were complaining about other things than those which I was talking about in my article, then why the fuck were you addressing your complaints to me? Bugger off, please. > I never.. ever... EVER... claimed that you were a Jew. > > Please GO BACK and READ the article CAREFULLY. I claimed that other > people on the net DO perceive Jews as being a boat-load of loud-mouthed > whiners. This is a said fact... but that's the way the world is. I > did not refer to you soley in this paragraph. Note that I said "people > like you and Rich Rosen." Had I meant "Jews like you and Rich Rosen" I > would have said so. Suddenly he remembers. It strikes me as odd. If the subject was Ubizmatists, and you said to me "Your loudmouthed whiningis giving Ubizmatists a bad name", how crazy would I be to believe that you assumed I was an Ubizmatist? Pretty damned sane, I'd say. If you want to try in a Nixonian way to rephrase what you said after the fact, go ahead. I need a good laugh. > Non-sequitur. In this case I'll simply change the subject line instead > of the content of the article. You and Rich Rosen do not dictate the > subject matter of articles via your choice of a subject line. Nor > can you moderate my freedom to choose whatever topic of conversation > interests me simply because the topic was - long ago - about the > Holocaust. What we dictate in our own articles is the content. If you are responding to those articles, but referring to things other than the content, then it is you who is shifting the focus, and thus you have no right to complain that it is you who has been misconstrued. If you make complaints and differing opinions with other people's articles, and those opinions are not related to the content of those articles but are related instead to some notions of your own (though you claimed your complaints were about our articles), then your whole basis of complaint is cracked. -- Like a bourbon? (HIC!) Drunk for the very first time... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr