[net.religion] Wingate's article excerpting technique speaks for itself

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/05/85)

>>Speaking of Gillette, he seems to think that Don Black is a good
>>'ole boy with just a lot of questions (like "What death camps?").    
>>This scares me.  Either Gillette is incredibly naive or incredibly
>>deceptive.  Even at the finale, Black made the following comment:
>>ONLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS LIKE RICH ROSEN AND BYRON HOWES WHO HAVE
>>CONSISTENTLY ARGUED FOR REASON AND KNOWLEDGE IN HUMAN DECISIONS
>>AS OPPOSED TO SUPERSTITION AND INTOLERANCE MADE THEIR VOICES 
>>HEARD 100% AGAINST DON BLACK.  [BILL PETER]

If I ever needed proof that Wingate was no better than a Don Black,
as if his earlier actions weren't enough, here it is.  The above
section, from his own article in reply to Bill Peter, is one the
most flagrant misquoting out of context text-rearranging hatchet jobs
I have ever seen on this net!!  Or anywhere else, by a supposedly
reasonable person claiming to be presenting evidence.  

The actual text of that section of the article, as reproduced below,
clearly shows the difference between the words of the author (Bill Peter)
and Charley's misapplication and rearrangement of his words, leaving out
significant sections, and misconstruing the intentions of the author.
(Note how the section above attempts to attribute the capitalized statement
to Don Black, by means of omission of a whole section of relevant facts
that Wingate the "christian" chose to leave out.  '>>' = the section;
'**' = what Wingate excised)

>> Speaking of Gillette, he seems to think that Don Black is a good
>> 'ole boy with just a lot of questions (like "What death camps?").    
>> This scares me.  Either Gillette is incredibly naive or incredibly
>> deceptive.  Even at the finale, Black made the following comment:
** 
** >This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the
** >match to burn a library.  
** 
** Does Ernst Zundel represent an entity that it is important for
** Jeff Gillette to defend?  Ernst Zundel is a balding, middle aged man
** who was born in Germany in 1939 with a passion to rehabilitate the repu-     
** tation of Hitler and the Third Reich.  He calls his house his BUNKER,
** AND HAS A SCALE MODEL OF AUSCHWITZ IN HIS BASEMENT!  (With only one
** oven, of course:  remember?  no death camps).                      
** 
**! What were the supernaturalists doing while Black was vilifying the
**! Jewish people?  Almost nothing.  Reverend Bob advised Don Black that it
**! will be difficult for christians to proselytize to the jews if "they
**! think we wish to color them gone."  Marchionni got into a theological
**! debate with Black, scolding his critics, and commenting on how he
**! "had no qualms with Black."  Jeff Gillette thought that Black was
**! another victim of Rich Rosen's christian baiting (not mentioning
**! how he himself was once a charter member of the Yiri Ben-David
**! baiting club).
>> 
>> ONLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS LIKE RICH ROSEN AND BYRON HOWES WHO HAVE
>> CONSISTENTLY ARGUED FOR REASON AND KNOWLEDGE IN HUMAN DECISIONS
>> AS OPPOSED TO SUPERSTITION AND INTOLERANCE MADE THEIR VOICES 
>> HEARD 100% AGAINST DON BLACK.

I can understand why he left out the "**!" section: it certainly
pointed out things that reflected badly on his peer group (Bob Brown,
Vince Marchionni, and Jeff Gillette).  In fact, given the size of all these
articles, I can understand leaving out large sections in general.  But note
how the way this man leaves out sections causes the intended meaning of the
original article to change drastically.  Purposely?  Given the way this has
happened in the past, I'd probably be right in saying yes.  This will
undoubtedly prompt Charles to go searching through archives to find examples
of what I did wrong so he can show the world that I'm flawed.  I admit to
being flawed, Charles, and committing errors of action and judgment.  Your
actions go far beyond errors in judgment.  It's apparent that your only
concern is to vilify me, going to any lame extremes that you can.  I don't
have to go to lame extremes to show what you've done:  it's there for all
to show.  All I need to do is reproduce it.  Rather than misquoting and
inventing mythological statistics that wouldn't have any bearing on anything
even if they WERE true.  Let's face it, chump.  You claim to be a Christian.
You are blatantly unwilling to commit to denouncing things that are (by
your own standards) virulently anti-Christian, claiming some sort of
immunity because of your self-imposed label that says "I'm not one of them".
But you are more than willing to stick your neck out to smear another human
being who has come forward and asked how you can remain silent and not care
and still claim to be an exempt Christian.

> But Rich argues against EVERYTHING to which anyone has ever attached the
> name of Christ, and thus does not count.  Byron Howes, if I recall correctly,
> is sort of a gnostic christian.  Bill, if you are going to claim that Rich
> argues for reason, you are all wet.  As far as I can tell, Rich is arguing
> for shouting at the top of your lungs.

As far as you can go to extremes to make that claim.  Does your paragraph
above mean that only a "charter member" can make such statements?   I'd
say you're the one that needs the towel, Charley.  Or perhaps a blow dryer.
Hot air seems to suit you.

> I too was puzzled at Jeff's response, but unlike many on this net, I do not
> presume to know what's happening down there at Duke.  I rather had the
> impression that he simply had not seen much of the argument.  I fully
> apreciate his reluctance to jump into the fray, seeing as how Rich had
> decided to turn the whole thing into a kind of litmus test (one, I might
> add, which could not be passed).

We've seen more than one Christian finally come forward and "pass", as if
someone was giving out grades.  I would think that a true Christian would
be more concerned with the ultimate test and the ultimate grade, but
apparently Charley either already has the answers for the final or uses
crib notes.

>>It is true that later Charley Wingate and Richard Carnes made
>>their voices heard.  And even Marchionni later said that Black's
>>positions were not of the RC church, and went back to discussing
>>transubstantion.  BUT IF IT WERE NOT FOR PEOPLE LIKE ROSEN OR MARONEY
>>OR HOSHEN, WE WOULD BE STILL LISTENING TO DEBATES ON WHETHER OR NOT
>>THE JEWS ARE CHRIST-KILLERS, ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A HOLOCAUST,
>>OR WHETHER OR NOT JESUS WAS AN ARYAN AND HITLER WAS HIS PROPHET.

> The last statement may be true, but not for the reasons Bill implies.  This
> whole thing had apparently passed through several rounds of replies before
> I was even aware of it.  Having 'rn' at my disposal, I do not hesitate to
> edit out great reams of material.  It appears therefore that we would NOT
> have ever heard these arguments had not Rich and his ilk drawn them out of
> the man.  I suspect my experience parallels that of many others on the net.
> When you start to tar people because they do not respond to articles,
> remember that the net does not represent ideal communications, or even GOOD
> communications.  Things take time to propagate, if they propagate, and I'm
> sure that a lot of material expires before I ever see it, even as often as
> I read this stuff.

Amazing how the tone has changed from "how dare you demand that I speak up!"
to "it's the fault of a flawed communications system with the net".  I'm
with Bill Peter:  your excuses are getting lamer and lamer.  ("...had not
Rich and his ilk [WHAT ILK IS THAT, CHARLES?] drawn [these arguments] out
of the man [Black]..."?  So now it's MY fault that Black spoke out in the
first place?  If I (along with my "ilk") had been quiet, then perhaps
Black would have just gone away and YOU wouldn't have had to worry about
having to respond to his filth, is that it?  Like the billboard says,
"Ignore your teeth, and they'll go away.")
-- 
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer.
 Superstition ain't the way."		Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/06/85)

In article <858@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP writes:

>If I ever needed proof that Wingate was no better than a Don Black,
>as if his earlier actions weren't enough, here it is.  The above
>section, from his own article in reply to Bill Peter, is one the
>most flagrant misquoting out of context text-rearranging hatchet jobs
>I have ever seen on this net!!  Or anywhere else, by a supposedly
>reasonable person claiming to be presenting evidence.  
>
>The actual text of that section of the article, as reproduced below,
>clearly shows the difference between the words of the author (Bill Peter)
>and Charley's misapplication and rearrangement of his words, leaving out
>significant sections, and misconstruing the intentions of the author.
>(Note how the section above attempts to attribute the capitalized statement
>to Don Black, by means of omission of a whole section of relevant facts
>that Wingate the "christian" chose to leave out.  '>>' = the section;
>'**' = what Wingate excised)

[Quote has been moved to the bottom so as to allow me to get to the point
before you've had to suffer through re-reading 75 lines of Rich again.]

>I can understand why he left out the "**!" section: it certainly
>pointed out things that reflected badly on his peer group (Bob Brown,
>Vince Marchionni, and Jeff Gillette).  In fact, given the size of all these
>articles, I can understand leaving out large sections in general.  But note
>how the way this man leaves out sections causes the intended meaning of the
>original article to change drastically.  Purposely?  Given the way this has
>happened in the past, I'd probably be right in saying yes.  This will
>undoubtedly prompt Charles to go searching through archives to find examples
>of what I did wrong so he can show the world that I'm flawed.  I admit to
>being flawed, Charles, and committing errors of action and judgment.  Your
>actions go far beyond errors in judgment.  It's apparent that your only
>concern is to vilify me, going to any lame extremes that you can.  I don't
>have to go to lame extremes to show what you've done:  it's there for all
>to show.  All I need to do is reproduce it.  Rather than misquoting and
>inventing mythological statistics that wouldn't have any bearing on anything
>even if they WERE true.  Let's face it, chump.  You claim to be a Christian.
>You are blatantly unwilling to commit to denouncing things that are (by
>your own standards) virulently anti-Christian, claiming some sort of
>immunity because of your self-imposed label that says "I'm not one of them".
>But you are more than willing to stick your neck out to smear another human
>being who has come forward and asked how you can remain silent and not care
>and still claim to be an exempt Christian.

Well, Rich, you've finally worn out my patience.  Not that you ever seemed
to have any. (Go ahead, self-righteously say "I have no patience with
bigots." I dare you.)  Maybe it was a bad idea to cut that section out.
Since I had no intention of arguing for or aginst it, I excised it.  Its
truth had no bearing on the argument.

What has really peeved me about the whole thing is the abuse you heaped upon
Jeff, without even having the civility to allow him to take back his remarks.
I was truly puzzled by his posting; my conversations with Jeff have made it
clear to me that he disagrees violently with the tenets espoused by Black.
The only explanation I have is that perhaps Jeff didn't see the articles, or
didn't read the whole thing (not unlikely at all), or any of a half dozen
other things.  I am quite willing to give him (and Don Black, for that
matter) the benefit of the doubt.  But Rich, without even asking Jeff to
clarify himself, flames all over him.

At this point I have no doubts about Don Black.  At the beginning, I did, for
reasons I've forgotten.  Rich, however, decided to turn the whole thing into
an ideological purity test.  I should have listened to Jeff, and refused the
test.  As Byron Howes pointed out to me in a letter, this whole discussion
could have been put to better use in actually talking about the chridstian
tendencies to anti-semetism and a host of other evils.  Rich, however, has
never been able to turn away from flaming at anything like that.

>> I too was puzzled at Jeff's response, but unlike many on this net, I do not
>> presume to know what's happening down there at Duke.  I rather had the
>> impression that he simply had not seen much of the argument.  I fully
>> apreciate his reluctance to jump into the fray, seeing as how Rich had
>> decided to turn the whole thing into a kind of litmus test (one, I might
>> add, which could not be passed).
>
>We've seen more than one Christian finally come forward and "pass", as if
>someone was giving out grades.  I would think that a true Christian would
>be more concerned with the ultimate test and the ultimate grade, but
>apparently Charley either already has the answers for the final or uses
>crib notes.

Bully for them.  The true point of this paragraph, however, is that Rich
agrees that it is O.K. for him to set himself up as ideological judge of the
net.

>>>It is true that later Charley Wingate and Richard Carnes made
>>>their voices heard.  And even Marchionni later said that Black's
>>>positions were not of the RC church, and went back to discussing
>>>transubstantion.  BUT IF IT WERE NOT FOR PEOPLE LIKE ROSEN OR MARONEY
>>>OR HOSHEN, WE WOULD BE STILL LISTENING TO DEBATES ON WHETHER OR NOT
>>>THE JEWS ARE CHRIST-KILLERS, ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A HOLOCAUST,
>>>OR WHETHER OR NOT JESUS WAS AN ARYAN AND HITLER WAS HIS PROPHET.
>
>> The last statement may be true, but not for the reasons Bill implies.  This
>> whole thing had apparently passed through several rounds of replies before
>> I was even aware of it.  Having 'rn' at my disposal, I do not hesitate to
>> edit out great reams of material.  It appears therefore that we would NOT
>> have ever heard these arguments had not Rich and his ilk drawn them out of
>> the man.  I suspect my experience parallels that of many others on the net.
>> When you start to tar people because they do not respond to articles,
>> remember that the net does not represent ideal communications, or even GOOD
>> communications.  Things take time to propagate, if they propagate, and I'm
>> sure that a lot of material expires before I ever see it, even as often as
>> I read this stuff.

>Amazing how the tone has changed from "how dare you demand that I speak up!"
>to "it's the fault of a flawed communications system with the net".  I'm
>with Bill Peter:  your excuses are getting lamer and lamer.  ("...had not
>Rich and his ilk [WHAT ILK IS THAT, CHARLES?] drawn [these arguments] out
>of the man [Black]..."?  So now it's MY fault that Black spoke out in the
>first place?  If I (along with my "ilk") had been quiet, then perhaps
>Black would have just gone away and YOU wouldn't have had to worry about
>having to respond to his filth, is that it?  Like the billboard says,
>"Ignore your teeth, and they'll go away.")

Actually, Black himself has said that you drove him away, Rich.  My points
are separate.  You are wrong to flame someone without taking into account
that the net is not perfect communications, and you are wrong to set
yourself up as judge.

Byron gave me some good advice just now, and I'm going to take it.  Don't
expect much from me in the way of responses from now on, because I've decided
to exercise my rights and ignore you.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe

[the disputed quote]

>>> Speaking of Gillette, he seems to think that Don Black is a good
>>> 'ole boy with just a lot of questions (like "What death camps?").    
>>> This scares me.  Either Gillette is incredibly naive or incredibly
>>> deceptive.  Even at the finale, Black made the following comment:
>** 
>** >This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the
>** >match to burn a library.  
>** 
>** Does Ernst Zundel represent an entity that it is important for
>** Jeff Gillette to defend?  Ernst Zundel is a balding, middle aged man
>** who was born in Germany in 1939 with a passion to rehabilitate the repu-     
>** tation of Hitler and the Third Reich.  He calls his house his BUNKER,
>** AND HAS A SCALE MODEL OF AUSCHWITZ IN HIS BASEMENT!  (With only one
>** oven, of course:  remember?  no death camps).                      
>** 
>**! What were the supernaturalists doing while Black was vilifying the
>**! Jewish people?  Almost nothing.  Reverend Bob advised Don Black that it
>**! will be difficult for christians to proselytize to the jews if "they
>**! think we wish to color them gone."  Marchionni got into a theological
>**! debate with Black, scolding his critics, and commenting on how he
>**! "had no qualms with Black."  Jeff Gillette thought that Black was
>**! another victim of Rich Rosen's christian baiting (not mentioning
>**! how he himself was once a charter member of the Yiri Ben-David
>**! baiting club).
>>> 
>>> ONLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS LIKE RICH ROSEN AND BYRON HOWES WHO HAVE
>>> CONSISTENTLY ARGUED FOR REASON AND KNOWLEDGE IN HUMAN DECISIONS
>>> AS OPPOSED TO SUPERSTITION AND INTOLERANCE MADE THEIR VOICES 
>>> HEARD 100% AGAINST DON BLACK.

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/09/85)

> [Quote has been moved to the bottom so as to allow me to get to the point
> before you've had to suffer through re-reading 75 lines of Rich again.]

I would guess that you modestly consider reading and re-reading *you* as
sheer ecstasy...  :-?

> Well, Rich, you've finally worn out my patience.  Not that you ever seemed
> to have any. (Go ahead, self-righteously say "I have no patience with
> bigots." I dare you.)  Maybe it was a bad idea to cut that section out.
> Since I had no intention of arguing for or aginst it, I excised it.  Its
> truth had no bearing on the argument.

Funny how its meaning totally changed, crediting a completely different
section to a completely different person, thus totally altering what was
said.  Since this is a tactic used in manipulative persuasive technique by
many political groups of certain creeds, since you've used this technique
in the past, and since you've supported the use of manipulative methods of
persuasion in the past, I feel safe in saying that such techniques (including
making bogus statistical claims like "Rosen submitted 60% of the articles in
net.religion") have become your trademark.  If you wish to take the time
to malign me so that the spotlight will not be on you, please desist.  It's
getting annoying and has no place in this newsgroup.

> What has really peeved me about the whole thing is the abuse you heaped upon
> Jeff, without even having the civility to allow him to take back his remarks.
> I was truly puzzled by his posting; my conversations with Jeff have made it
> clear to me that he disagrees violently with the tenets espoused by Black.
> The only explanation I have is that perhaps Jeff didn't see the articles, or
> didn't read the whole thing (not unlikely at all), or any of a half dozen
> other things.  I am quite willing to give him (and Don Black, for that
> matter) the benefit of the doubt.  But Rich, without even asking Jeff to
> clarify himself, flames all over him.

That's funny, I wasn't even talking about Jeff, now, was I?  If you're trying
to make it seem like "he's not just 'attacking' me---look!", this is getting
very juvenile.

> At this point I have no doubts about Don Black.  At the beginning, I did, for
> reasons I've forgotten.  Rich, however, decided to turn the whole thing into
> an ideological purity test.  I should have listened to Jeff, and refused the
> test.  As Byron Howes pointed out to me in a letter, this whole discussion
> could have been put to better use in actually talking about the chridstian
> tendencies to anti-semetism and a host of other evils.  Rich, however, has
> never been able to turn away from flaming at anything like that.

That's funny.  That's exactly what I was talking about with Wingate for
months, and when the subject originally came up he accused me of attacking
him then too.  You're obviously still out to tar me at any cost to clear your
own name.

>>We've seen more than one Christian finally come forward and "pass", as if
>>someone was giving out grades.  I would think that a true Christian would
>>be more concerned with the ultimate test and the ultimate grade, but
>>apparently Charley either already has the answers for the final or uses
>>crib notes.

> Bully for them.  The true point of this paragraph, however, is that Rich
> agrees that it is O.K. for him to set himself up as ideological judge of the
> net.

Not only do I state very clearly in the paragraph above that there was no
"test" and no "judgment", but I state that it is on the basis of comparing
what one claims to believe which the way one acts that is the basis for
any and all comments.  It's not my job to judge you.  You're the one who
believes in an ultimate judge, not me.  The fact that you contradict what
you claim to be your beliefs with your very actions will, if there is such a
judge, work against you at that final judgment.  Which, I would think, would
be reason for a supposedly reasoned human being like yourself to act on the
beliefs, to speak up as Jody Patilla and Bill Jefferys and others have and
to state unequivocally that, even though you may have been tarred in certain
ways, you denounce such bigotry in the name of Christianity, rather than
saying "But I'm an Episcopalian!"

>>>The last statement may be true, but not for the reasons Bill implies.  This
>>>whole thing had apparently passed through several rounds of replies before
>>>I was even aware of it.  Having 'rn' at my disposal, I do not hesitate to
>>>edit out great reams of material.  It appears therefore that we would NOT
>>>have ever heard these arguments had not Rich and his ilk drawn them out of
>>>the man.  I suspect my experience parallels that of many others on the net.
>>>When you start to tar people because they do not respond to articles,
>>>remember that the net does not represent ideal communications, or even GOOD
>>>communications.  Things take time to propagate, if they propagate, and I'm
>>>sure that a lot of material expires before I ever see it, even as often as
>>>I read this stuff.

>>Amazing how the tone has changed from "how dare you demand that I speak up!"
>>to "it's the fault of a flawed communications system with the net".  I'm
>>with Bill Peter:  your excuses are getting lamer and lamer.  ("...had not
>>Rich and his ilk [WHAT ILK IS THAT, CHARLES?] drawn [these arguments] out
>>of the man [Black]..."?  So now it's MY fault that Black spoke out in the
>>first place?  If I (along with my "ilk") had been quiet, then perhaps
>>Black would have just gone away and YOU wouldn't have had to worry about
>>having to respond to his filth, is that it?  Like the billboard says,
>>"Ignore your teeth, and they'll go away.")

> Actually, Black himself has said that you drove him away, Rich.  My points
> are separate.  You are wrong to flame someone without taking into account
> that the net is not perfect communications, and you are wrong to set
> yourself up as judge.

Again, I did no such thing.  If you're interested in what you would call
"fair play" and not just getting back at me, why didn't you flame Bill
Peter's article that preceded this one and which I reiterated?  Because your
goal seems to be "get back at Rich for his saying what he said that gave
me no recourse but to snap back at him".  This is childish.  If you want,
you win.  I apologize for running roughshod over you.  Your record still
contradicts your claims.  You said you were interested in speaking out on
Christian tendencies toward anti-Semitism, especially in light of comments
I made about your remarks on Jew-baiting.  Yet you cowered and claimed I
was attacking you when the topic came up.  Whom are we both kidding, Charles?
I have told you more than once that your very actions frighten me to death.
Why?  Because, in your own words, you're NOT a Nazi.  Or a Falwellian.  Or
an Identity Christian.  And yet 1) you still seem to hold many of the same
attitudes regarding individual human freedom and individual groups, and
2) you see no reason to speak up in the face of those things that you're not
except to say "But I'm an Episcopalian!"   I'm glad you no longer have
doubts about Black, I'm glad you came to certain realizations.  If I had
some small part in this, I'm glad.  I wish I hadn't "driven him away",
he's nice to have around to show such people for what they are.  If you're
so interested in talking about issues like Christian history of anti-Semitism
and Christian apathy to dangers to non-Christians, then do so.  The floor is
yours.  But this vindictive mudslinging?  I've had enough.  How about you?
Black's driven away, but his kind are not gone.  Shall we all crawl back into
our shells until one of them comes along in the "real world" and not just on
the net?  You among others have shown how much prodding it takes for SOME
people to respond when something like this happens.  Some don't recognize
it.  No one who's been reading this newsgroup over the last two weeks has that
excuse.  Some would just rather ignore it despite what they know.  There
are lessons unlearned there.  Oh well...
-- 
Otology recapitulates phonology.
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr