jj@alice.UUCP (04/09/85)
To summarize the past few weeks:
printf("Black posts");
printf("Rosen replies");
while (1) {
printf("Wingate Attacks \n");
printf("Rosen Defends,attacks");
}
I must say that my recent foray into net.religion has left me
QUITE disgusted with the newsgoup. What I've seen
is Don Black post an extremely unpleasant article that represents
itself as "Christian", a few splutters, Rosen asking why
Christians don't speak out, some Christians attacking Rosen,
some Black, and Wingate ATTACKING Rosen, using all the rhetorical
tricks in the book to make his specious points and garner emotional
support. (Note that I'm NOT supporting Rosen's techniques here,
I'm complaining about Wingate's!)
Over the past couple of weeks, I have posted several articles pointing
out the fallicies in Wingate's arguments, and how he quite skillfully
uses them to manipulate the reader. I've received a lot of mail about
this, 99.5% positive. (I received one note from Wingate.)
I tried to open a mail conversation, and received no answer.
Frankly, I'm offended! VERY offended. Why? Because I see
Wingate (and others) attacking Rosen, when there is a perfectly
clear, transparent threat present in Mr. Black, who is co-opting
their label, religion, and public with his rhetoric. While
Black is spreading his message, these individuals are attacking the
people who (perhaps far too violently) chastised them for not replying,
and reply to Black's message only in passing. I find this juxtaposition
most offensive, and indicative of the feelings of those who post.
NOW, we have Wingate, proposing that everyone ignore Rosen, the
ultimate Co-opt. I think that we should take Wingate's advice
in some sense, and ignore those guilty of specious, manipulitive,
and destructive arguments. Sorry, Charlie!
Nil se ne la!
--
TEDDY BEARS NEED SECURITY BLANKETS, WRAP YOURS TODAY!
"I think I'm going to regret this!"
ihnp4!icarus!jj