black@nisysg.DEC (04/02/85)
Rich Rosen really outdid himself, didn't he? Rosen, you're so full of blind, immature hate that I can feel the heat of Hell coming off the tube into my face. Christ was right when said Pharisees were the sons of Satan. I suspect your distant relative was Caiaphas himself, the Chief Priest of the Sanhedrin. Yeah, my fan mail has dropped off, it's now running one for one. One nice letter came from a fan at that great institution, Harvard University. The person actually threatened me with bodily harm. On the other hand, I have had at least two requests for more information. I hope you all see what I mean, about who is repressing whom. Just step one little bit out of the "established" chain of thought, and WHAMMO! And if it goes too far, the ADL starts calling your associates. Smear tactics almost always work. (Do the Knights of Colombus make slanderous phone calls?) Rosen's tactics are exactly the point that I tried to get across-- there are people in this world who want to limit American freedom. They will stoop to no end to crush any thing or anybody that opposes them. They oppose any form of Christianity, any form of Islam, any form of Deism. Hate and physical abuse were exactly the tactics used against Zundel and the Institute for Historical Review. As Americans in a free society, should we condone this? Should we not speak out against it? That's OK, Rich. Christ told us exactly what we're up against. And I believe it. Only time will tell which one of us is right, me or Rosen. You see for yourselves who is calling whom dirty names. You see for your- selves who is getting personal, who is using smear tactics. Christ told us in Matthew 7:16-20, by their fruits shall you know them. I thought the net was for the exchanging of religious belief. It's fairly obvious who turned it into a personal hate campaign. There is a book on the market, "Hostage to the Devil," by Malachi Martin, a Jesuit. Father Martin was an exorcist for a number of years. He decribes the many "Possessions" he has encountered. One of the attributes common to the excorcisms is that the closer he got to the identity of the occupying spirits, the more vile, the more personal the attacks became upon himself. Sound familiar? Sleep well tonight. --DB (P.S. Don't bother Flaming me on the net. I don't subscribe any more.)
dsg@mhuxi.UUCP (David S. Green) (04/03/85)
[] > There is a book on the market, "Hostage to the Devil," by Malachi > Martin, a Jesuit. Father Martin was an exorcist for a number of years. > He decribes the many "Possessions" he has encountered. One of the > attributes common to the excorcisms is that the closer he got to the > identity of the occupying spirits, the more vile, the more personal > the attacks became upon himself. Sound familiar? > --DB I saw the movie, Rich doesn't look anything like Linda Blair.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/04/85)
In article <1445@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes: > I hope you all see what I mean, about who is repressing whom. > Just step one little bit out of the "established" chain of thought, and > WHAMMO! And if it goes too far, the ADL starts calling your > associates. Smear tactics almost always work. (Do the Knights of > Colombus make slanderous phone calls?) Well, they haven't worked too well for Don. > Rosen's tactics are exactly the point that I tried to get across-- > there are people in this world who want to limit American freedom. > They will stoop to no end to crush any thing or anybody that opposes > them. They oppose any form of Christianity, any form of Islam, any > form of Deism. Hate and physical abuse were exactly the tactics used > against Zundel and the Institute for Historical Review. As Americans > in a free society, should we condone this? Should we not speak out > against it? I can't verify the statements about Zundel, but, based on Blakc's record so far, I'd need some strong evidence. As for tactics, the only real difference between the two as far as argument style is concerned is that Rich is a little closer to reality, and Don has a more reasonable-souding tone of voice. Misstatements, over-generalizations, arguments from ignorance, and ad-hominem arguments seem to be par for the course for either. > Only time will tell which one of us is right, me or Rosen. You > see for yourselves who is calling whom dirty names. You see for your- > selves who is getting personal, who is using smear tactics. Christ > told us in Matthew 7:16-20, by their fruits shall you know them. I > thought the net was for the exchanging of religious belief. It's > fairly obvious who turned it into a personal hate campaign. Well, DOn's accusation against Rich may be correct (judge ye for yourself), but Don has also revealed his fruits, and rotten they are. > There is a book on the market, "Hostage to the Devil," by Malachi > Martin, a Jesuit. Father Martin was an exorcist for a number of years. > He decribes the many "Possessions" he has encountered. One of the > attributes common to the excorcisms is that the closer he got to the > identity of the occupying spirits, the more vile, the more personal > the attacks became upon himself. Sound familiar? Now HERE's a novel argument technique. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/04/85)
> Rich Rosen really outdid himself, didn't he? > Rosen, you're so full of blind, immature hate that I can feel the > heat of Hell coming off the tube into my face. Christ was right when > said Pharisees were the sons of Satan. I suspect your distant relative > was Caiaphas himself, the Chief Priest of the Sanhedrin. I suppose this was an example of insightful, mature hate. > Yeah, my fan mail has dropped off, it's now running one for one. > One nice letter came from a fan at that great institution, Harvard > University. The person actually threatened me with bodily harm. On > the other hand, I have had at least two requests for more information. Thanks for showing how easy it is to generate new sets of lies for each appropriate situation. ("Whoops! I slipped about the content of my mail. Better create a new 'operative' statement of truth.") And how easy it is when you make statements that you know can't be corroborated. ("What? Give you a list of the people who sent supportive mail? I couldn't do that, that would violate private mail, which *I* would never do!!!") Note that the only hard statements Black has ever made are the ones that cannot be corroborated. The rest he just insinuates, using the uncorroborated stuff as premises. I wonder where he could have learned such clever techniques... > I hope you all see what I mean, about who is repressing whom. > Just step one little bit out of the "established" chain of thought, and > WHAMMO! And if it goes too far, the ADL starts calling your > associates. Smear tactics almost always work. (Do the Knights of > Colombus make slanderous phone calls?) You're right, it's wrong to "repress" you (i.e., point out the flaws in your statements) just for stepping out of the "established" chain of thought. I mean, just because you have no means to back up your assertions is no reason for the rest of us to stop you from making them, even if their sole purpose is to incite hate. By the very laws of our country which you would ignore, you have the right to speak and not have your words subject to analysis or criticism, because THAT is repression! (The above paragraph, of course, does not, emphatically NOT, contain smear tactics itself, right, Don?) > Rosen's tactics are exactly the point that I tried to get across-- > there are people in this world who want to limit American freedom. > They will stoop to no end to crush any thing or anybody that opposes > them. They oppose any form of Christianity, any form of Islam, any > form of Deism. Hate and physical abuse were exactly the tactics used > against Zundel and the Institute for Historical Review. As Americans > in a free society, should we condone this? Should we not speak out > against it? You're right again, Mr. Black. Only you should be free to use the tactics of hate and physical abuse, not those who work against your hate and physical abuse (and who, by the way, are merely *accused* by you of engaging in your own tactics). I "oppose" such systems in that I show their basis to be irrational. Thus my only goal is to encourage people to make viable decisions about such belief systems themselves, based on the information. It is my opinion that they will die a natural death of their own accord through such a process of education. Apparently, it is also the opinion of some others who don't like that idea because too many things would be changed (from their perspective, for the worse). So rather than engaging in a rational debunking process, they are forced (by the state of their own evidence) to deal in smear tactics, lies, etc., because there's little else they could do. Of course, some people either don't care to do such things. Black is just one of those that does. > That's OK, Rich. Christ told us exactly what we're up against. > And I believe it. "Told"? I doubt that you have either spoken to Christ or have been spoken to by him, regardless of the "nature of subjective evidence" arguments. If the "Christ" represented by Christianity exists, and if he spoke to you, I think you'd be missing a pair of ears. Told "us"? Is this the standard paranoid's retreat: use the term "us" when referring only to oneself? Obviously you're in need of some significant psychological therapy to cure you of your delusions of grandeur, your need to feel important at the expense of other groups of people, whom you blame as the cause for your actual unimportance. Ken, does DEC have a benefit program that would provide for such therapy? Ken? Where is that Ken Arndt fellow amidst all of this? ... > Only time will tell which one of us is right, me or Rosen. You > see for yourselves who is calling whom dirty names. You see for your- > selves who is getting personal, who is using smear tactics. Christ > told us in Matthew 7:16-20, by their fruits shall you know them. I > thought the net was for the exchanging of religious belief. It's > fairly obvious who turned it into a personal hate campaign. I'll say. Smear tactics involve lies. I haven't been lying. Your fruit smells pretty rotten. > There is a book on the market, "Hostage to the Devil," by Malachi > Martin, a Jesuit. Father Martin was an exorcist for a number of years. > He decribes the many "Possessions" he has encountered. One of the > attributes common to the excorcisms is that the closer he got to the > identity of the occupying spirits, the more vile, the more personal > the attacks became upon himself. Sound familiar? Yes, indeed, but claiming to be possessed by evil spirits does not provide an excuse for your hateful behavior, Mr. Black. Only some serious analysis into why you need to blame other groups of people for your personal problems can rid you of that. > Sleep well tonight. I haven't since your kind have made themselves known. But, then, the inaction of the "silent majority", who take their cue from the silent inactive Germans of the early 1930s, scare me even more, and do more damage to my sleep pattern than a lone psychotic like you ever could. > (P.S. Don't bother Flaming me on the net. I don't subscribe > any more.) Hmmm. How did this article get sent then? -- Meet the new wave, same as the old wave... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr