wkp@lanl.ARPA (04/03/85)
[Charley Wingate writes:] >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. Charley, I'm not a psychologist and I don't care about people's reasons for posting, or their personal ego trips. I have already summarized the "actions" (i.e., inactions) of many of your friends in regard to IC. The only thing I care about in this regard is reality. REALITY is not talking to god in Pizza Hut while neo-Nazis stir up hatred. REALITY is not watching people being shipped to death camps and saying "I didn't know" or "imagine" or "care". It is action that counts. And while many of your friends who discuss "real presence" or "transubstantiation" theologized with Black, it was only people like Tim or Rich or Byron or S. Aldrich or many others who saw the inherent evil in that man's spouting. Sorry, Charley. You'll have to think up better excuses why your friends didn't respond (didn't get a chance to, were busy, 'rn' keys, etc.) or responded inappropriately (were misunderstood, didn't know, etc.). I'm really losing patience with some of your excuses. If you have a personal grudge against Rosen or Maroney, I don't care. At least they saw racism for what it was, and FOUGHT against it. By the way, in your article you called Byron a "christian". Using your notation ("christian" instead of "Christian"), that's not very complementary is it? Or aren't Gnostic Christians Christian? -- bill peter cmcl2!lanl!wkp
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (04/04/85)
In article <24035@lanl.ARPA> wkp@lanl.ARPA writes: >By the way, in your article you called Byron a "christian". Using >your notation ("christian" instead of "Christian"), that's not >very complementary is it? Or aren't Gnostic Christians Christian? Thanks, Bill, for the good thoughts. I'd just as soon not be used as a club against Charley or anyone else, however. Whether Charley (or anyone else) calls me a Christian or christian or m*****f****r is hardly important to me. I'm not too easily offended by such as that. I think we all, myself included, are often guilty of not counting to 10 before we post to this group. I'd like to do my bit to keep the flames at a manageable level. Enjoy, -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/04/85)
In article <24035@lanl.ARPA> wkp@lanl.ARPA writes: >It is action that counts. And while many of your friends who discuss >"real presence" or "transubstantiation" theologized with Black, it was only >people like Tim or Rich or Byron or S. Aldrich or many others who saw >the inherent evil in that man's spouting. Sorry, Charley. You'll have >to think up better excuses why your friends didn't respond (didn't get >a chance to, were busy, 'rn' keys, etc.) or responded inappropriately >(were misunderstood, didn't know, etc.). How presumptious. You really claim to know why people choose not to post. The four people mentioned above are those who decided it was necessary to respond. Your cheap accusations (frankly, I dont' recall discussing transubstantiation with anyone recently, and certainly not with Don Black) have no substance. Without some real proof that the people you condemn DID read Black's articles, and assented to them, your charges are rubbish. >I'm really losing patience with some of your excuses. If you have >a personal grudge against Rosen or Maroney, I don't care. At least >they saw racism for what it was, and FOUGHT against it. They did nothing of the kind. The influence of USENET over the world is so infinitesimally small that it isn't worth bothering with. It's very easy to sit back in your office, prop up your feet, take up the keyboard, and flame away at whatever catches your fancy. It also has almost no effect upon the world, especially when it is done so regularly and with such self- righteousness. >By the way, in your article you called Byron a "christian". Using >your notation ("christian" instead of "Christian"), that's not >very complementary is it? Or aren't Gnostic Christians Christian? This doesn't make any sense to me. I recall a discussion a while back concerning Byron's beliefs. About the only sense I can extract from this is that Bill has joined the Rich Rosen "Read Things Into Upper and Lower Case" club of putting things in my posting which aren't there. Now watch closely: Gnostic christian==gnostic Christian==Gnostic Christian==gnostic christian Clear enough? (BTW, Byron, if I misread you, feel free to correct me.) Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu) (04/04/85)
> It is action that counts. And while many of your friends who discuss > "real presence" or "transubstantiation" theologized with Black, it was only > people like Tim or Rich or Byron or S. Aldrich or many others who saw > the inherent evil in that man's spouting. Sorry, Charley. You'll have > to think up better excuses why your friends didn't respond (didn't get > a chance to, were busy, 'rn' keys, etc.) or responded inappropriately > (were misunderstood, didn't know, etc.). > > I'm really losing patience with some of your excuses. If you have > a personal grudge against Rosen or Maroney, I don't care. At least > they saw racism for what it was, and FOUGHT against it. [BILL PETER] It's become apparent that Charley's "personal grudges" are far more important than what he claims to be his personal beliefs. Remember that this is the man who justified abusive proselytizing. And the man who complains "How dare you categorize me with that incorrect politicoreligious label?" *I'M* not one of them. *MY* church isn't like that." in direct contradiction to his actions. As if proving that he belongs to a group with a different label gets him off the hook. > By the way, in your article you called Byron a "christian". Using > your notation ("christian" instead of "Christian"), that's not > very complementary is it? Or aren't Gnostic Christians Christian? (Sorry, I'm laughing.) Charley often claims "randomness" as the source of his decision making process for choosing to capitalize and/or quote (or not) the word Christian. Recall that the original usage was to distinguish "christian" intolerance (i.e., not by Christians) from Jewish intolerance (i.e., *by* Jews?). -- "It's a lot like life..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr