rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/04/85)
What can we say about the difference between Identity Christian movements and
movements like the Moral Majority? The only one I can think of is in the area
of public relations: the Moral Majority is a "prettier", more PR-conscious
movement than the Identity Christians, who are more willing to resort to
violence at any time than MM. The Moral Majority and their radical
fundamentalist ilk may speak in sweet voices publicly how they're not Nazis
("See? We love Israel! Therefore we love the Jews!"----note how the
hypocritical cheek is turned to reveal face #2 when they proclaim "How dare you
accuse us of being anti-Semitic when we're simply maligning the behavior of
Jews?"). The IC's, on the other hand, are at least not masking their beliefs
with sugarcoating (they use more "big lie" oriented forms of deception). Is
what the Moral Morality and the fundamentalist religious right are saying any
different from the words of Don Black above? I'd say not at all. So recognize
what it is they're really saying. And realize that this goes for those who
would proclaim "I'm not one of them", while their actions betray at best a
shocking insensitivity and at worst an appalling level of bigotry. They may
say, "You know nothing about my church!", but we have witnessed and learned
something about the beliefs that their churches have ingrained in them, and
the actions that result. (And, no, I'm not singling out one particular person
here either.)
It is becoming apparent that the Don Black persona was more than likely a
fraud perpetrated by DEC employees. The fact that Don Black is the name of a
leader of the Alabama (?) KKK, plus the fact that Ken Arndt was conspicuously
absent (uncharacteristically so) during this whole affair (with some of
"Black's" material echoing his style), are factors leading to this conclusion.
Would an actual person who actually worked for DEC who actually believed what
was said actually leave his actual name? Nonetheless, "Black's" words are
worth looking at for what they represent. Some may take this as some sort of
excuse to say "Now you see why I didn't bother speaking out!" 20/20 hindsight.
--
"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!rlrfsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/05/85)
(Shouldn't that say Rich Rosen, not Arthur Pewtey?) | V In article <pyuxd.948> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >What can we say about the difference between Identity Christian movements and >movements like the Moral Majority? The only one I can think of is in the area >of public relations: the Moral Majority is a "prettier", more PR-conscious >movement than the Identity Christians, who are more willing to resort to >violence at any time than MM. The Identity Christian movement preaches racial hatred and anti-semitism. Though some members of the Moral Majority might be racist, the group as a whole does not preach such poison. This is an important difference. Since you criticized the Moral Majority's public relations, let me suggest that YOU look after YOUR OWN public relations. How much help to you expect to get from the Christians in fighting the Don Black's of the world when you constantly insult them IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP! >The Moral Majority and their radical fundamentalist ilk may speak >in sweet voices publicly how they're not Nazis >("See? We love Israel! Therefore we love the Jews!"- Would you prefer that they attack Jewish concerns instead? What's the matter with you? >--note how the hypocritical cheek is turned to reveal face #2 when they >proclaim "How dare you accuse us of being anti-Semitic when we're simply >maligning the behavior of Jews?"). Does the Moral Majority malign the behavior of Jews? I have not heard these statements from them, and I am very sensitive to such propaganda. On the other hand, I would understand very easily that they should malign people like you. I don't understand why the people in net.religion.christian tolerate your frequent criticisms of Christianity IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP. >The IC's, on the other hand, are at least not masking their beliefs >with sugarcoating (they use more "big lie" oriented forms of deception). You presume to be able to read people's minds. How do you KNOW the Moral Majority is not sincere? I, too, have my doubts about their sincerity. But for God's sake, give them the benefit of the doubt! >Is what the Moral Morality and the fundamentalist religious right >are saying any different from the words of Don Black above? >I'd say not at all. Which words of Don Black, where? Some of the things Don Black said are consistant with Christianity. On the other hand, many of his statements are a perversion of Christianity. It depends which of his words you are talking about. Nobody is 100% screwed up. Even Hitler was kind to dogs. >So recognize what it is they're really saying. And realize that this goes >for those who would proclaim "I'm not one of them", while their actions >betray at best a shocking insensitivity and at worst an appalling level >of bigotry. They may say, "You know nothing about my church!", but we >have witnessed and learned something about the beliefs that their churches >have ingrained in them, and the actions that result. (And, no, I'm not >singling out one particular person here either.) Now YOU are using Don Black tactics. Don Black says: "Don't listen to what the Jews SAY they believe. WE know what they're really after!" You say: "Forget what Chritians SAY they believe! I know what they REALLY believe." Don't you think we should leave it to the Christians to define Christianity? >It is becoming apparent that the Don Black persona was more than likely a >fraud perpetrated by DEC employees. The fact that Don Black is the name of a >leader of the Alabama (?) KKK, plus the fact that Ken Arndt was conspicuously >absent (uncharacteristically so) during this whole affair (with some of >"Black's" material echoing his style), are factors leading to this conclusion. >Would an actual person who actually worked for DEC who actually believed what >was said actually leave his actual name? Nonetheless, "Black's" words are >worth looking at for what they represent. Some may take this as some sort of >excuse to say "Now you see why I didn't bother speaking out!" 20/20 hindsight. > Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr I'm beginning to think that YOU are a fraud perpetrated by Ken Arndt, trying to see how far you could go before other Jews were willing to denounce YOU in public. Frank Silbermann
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/06/85)
> (Shouldn't that say Rich Rosen, not Arthur Pewtey?) > | > V > In article <pyuxd.948> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: > ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [FRANK SILBERMANN] No, it should say Dinsdale Piranha. >>What can we say about the difference between Identity Christian movements and >>movements like the Moral Majority? The only one I can think of is in the area >>of public relations: the Moral Majority is a "prettier", more PR-conscious >>movement than the Identity Christians, who are more willing to resort to >>violence at any time than MM. > The Identity Christian movement preaches racial hatred and anti-semitism. > Though some members of the Moral Majority might be racist, the group as a > whole does not preach such poison. This is an important difference. The whole point of the prior article (repeating my reply to Don Black's original diatribe on the "old ways") attempted to show otherwise. Recognize what the notions of going bavk to those old ways really means. It means giving up social reform and rights finally recognized for other people so that THEY can go back to a more stable and predictable time for them. The old values these people speak of include bigotry, sexism, superiority notions, fervent nationalistic yahooism, and blind obedience to authority. Not an important difference? Only if you look at the cover and not inside the book. > Since you criticized the Moral Majority's public relations, let me suggest > that YOU look after YOUR OWN public relations. How much help to you expect > to get from the Christians in fighting the Don Black's of the world when you > constantly insult them IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP! Insult? You mean open their belief systems to scrutiny? Which Christians have I unprovokedly insulted? I reply when defamed publicly by people like Wingate who quote random statistics and misquote articles seemingly only for the purpose of maligning me. What I "attack" is the foundations of a belief system which I have seen gaping holes in. A belief system that some would propose as THE one on which societal morality MUST be based. If you don't like that, if you have a problem with showing things for what they are, I'd say that's your problem, not mine. I'll continue to do what I'm doing as long as the threat continues. >>The Moral Majority and their radical fundamentalist ilk may speak >>in sweet voices publicly how they're not Nazis >>("See? We love Israel! Therefore we love the Jews!"- > Would you prefer that they attack Jewish concerns instead? > What's the matter with you? I'd prefer that they would be less hypocritical. We've seen how fundamentalist leaders are proud to proclaim that god does not listen to Jews, only to hear other, more PR-conscious leaders "denounce" the statement. The sentiment of that original proclaimer is rampant in Christian America, both overtly and subconsciously. >>--note how the hypocritical cheek is turned to reveal face #2 when they >>proclaim "How dare you accuse us of being anti-Semitic when we're simply >>maligning the behavior of Jews?"). > Does the Moral Majority malign the behavior of Jews? I have not heard > these statements from them, and I am very sensitive to such propaganda. > On the other hand, I would understand very easily that they should malign > people like you. I don't understand why the people in net.religion.christian > tolerate your frequent criticisms of Christianity IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP. You *would* understand them maligning me? I guess I would too. I'm showing them for what they are. If I were some sort of public figure pointing these things out to millions of people (not that many of the blind and deaf followers would see or hear), I'm sure they would rush to malign me in any way possible. As you now seem to be doing. Why? The reason it is "tolerated" is because the net is a public forum, and probably because many of the "thinking" Christians (certainly not all Christians, just the ones for whom the word "thinking" should indeed be in quotes) choose to bypass what I write. Like you, they may make the excuse that it is "insulting", but no person is maligned in those postings, only holes in belief systems are pointed out. And perhaps they (and you) don't like that. >>The IC's, on the other hand, are at least not masking their beliefs >>with sugarcoating (they use more "big lie" oriented forms of deception). > You presume to be able to read people's minds. > How do you KNOW the Moral Majority is not sincere? I, too, have my > doubts about their sincerity. But for God's sake, give them the benefit > of the doubt! So that their movement can make inroads into laying a groundwork for societal restrictions based on THEIR moral code? No thank you, I'll work in advance rather than waiting around. Falwell's insincerity and double- facedness is evident every time he appears on the tube. I don't give the benefit of the doubt to people who seek the "old ways", knowing what such statements about the "old ways" really mean. >>Is what the Moral Morality and the fundamentalist religious right >>are saying any different from the words of Don Black above? >>I'd say not at all. > Which words of Don Black, where? Obviously you missed the article that preceded this one, a reprinting of an old "Old ways" article. (Originally these two were one article, hence the word "above".) If you request, I'll mail you a copy. > Some of the things Don Black said > are consistant with Christianity. On the other hand, many of his > statements are a perversion of Christianity. It depends which > of his words you are talking about. Nobody is 100% screwed up. > Even Hitler was kind to dogs. Seeing dogs as worthy of life while Jews are not strikes me as screwed up, doesn't it? >>So recognize what it is they're really saying. And realize that this goes >>for those who would proclaim "I'm not one of them", while their actions >>betray at best a shocking insensitivity and at worst an appalling level >>of bigotry. They may say, "You know nothing about my church!", but we >>have witnessed and learned something about the beliefs that their churches >>have ingrained in them, and the actions that result. (And, no, I'm not >>singling out one particular person here either.) > Now YOU are using Don Black tactics. Don Black says: > "Don't listen to what the Jews SAY they believe. > WE know what they're really after!" > > You say: > "Forget what Chritians SAY they believe! I know what they REALLY > believe." Based on their actions for thousandss of years, and on the ingrained mindset of religious superiority preached from hundreds of pulpits across this country and adhered to by followers. These are not "Don Black" tactics. I am not tarring all Christians as a group. In a previous article, I acknowledged the Christians who have spoken out, recognizing and admitting that they have shown me that not all Christians are of the breed that seems more interested in proving and pushing Christianity and denouncing anyone who disagrees with them. Some actually live real Christianity, as in acting (as much) like Jesus is purported to have done (as possible). I *am*, though, pointing out those who ARE of that breed, the "pushers", who won't let any debunking stand in their way of ensuring that their way comes to pass. >>It is becoming apparent that the Don Black persona was more than likely a >>fraud perpetrated by DEC employees. The fact that Don Black is the name of a >>leader of the Alabama (?) KKK, plus the fact that Ken Arndt was conspicuously >>absent (uncharacteristically so) during this whole affair (with some of >>"Black's" material echoing his style), are factors leading to this conclusion. >>Would an actual person who actually worked for DEC who actually believed what >>was said actually leave his actual name? Nonetheless, "Black's" words are >>worth looking at for what they represent. Some may take this as some sort of >>excuse to say "Now you see why I didn't bother speaking out!" 20/20 hindsight. > I'm beginning to think that YOU are a fraud perpetrated by Ken Arndt, > trying to see how far you could go before other Jews were willing > to denounce YOU in public. I think a number of other people, Jew and Christian and others alike, have concurred with my assessments of Black, and have expressed worry after witnessing the silence of the "pushing" element of the Christian community. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/08/85)
>>> -- Rich Rosen >> -- me, Frank Silbermann > -- Rich Rosen -- me, Frank Silbermann In article <pyuxd.953> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: > >> The Identity Christian movement preaches racial hatred and anti-semitism. >> Though some members of the Moral Majority might be racist, the group as a >> whole does not preach such poison. This is an important difference. >> How much help to you expect to get from the Christians in fighting >> the Don Black's of the world when you constantly insult them >> IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP! >Insult? You mean open their belief systems to scrutiny? >What I "attack" is the foundations of a belief system which >I have seen gaping holes in. A belief system that some would >propose as THE one on which societal morality MUST be based. >I'll continue to do what I'm doing as long as the threat continues. I have nothing against your pointing out inconsistencies within Christianity. That is your right. But do it from within a Christian perspective or do it in another newsgroup. Leave net.christian for the Christians. ********************************************************************** >>>The Moral Majority and their radical fundamentalist ilk may speak >>>in sweet voices publicly how they're not Nazis >>>("See? We love Israel! Therefore we love the Jews!"- >> Would you prefer that they attack Jewish concerns instead? >> What's the matter with you? >I'd prefer that they would be less hypocritical. We've seen how >fundamentalist leaders are proud to proclaim that god does not >listen to Jews, only to hear other, more PR-conscious leaders >"denounce" the statement. The sentiment of that original proclaimer >is rampant in Christian America, both overtly and subconsciously. That only proves that there is dissent among Christians. Even if Jerry Falwell is hypocritical, his assumed hypocracy shows that he at least ACCEPTS the notion that blatant anti-semitism is unacceptable. If he is a hypocrite, then removing that hypocracy would only turn him into a raving anti-semite. I would NOT consider that an improvement. Perhaps you would. ********************************************************************** >> Some of the things Don Black said are consistant with Christianity. >> On the other hand, many of his statements are a perversion of Christianity. >> It depends which of his words you are talking about. Nobody is 100% >> screwed up. Even Hitler was kind to dogs. >Seeing dogs as worthy of life while Jews are not strikes me as screwed up, >doesn't it? Yes, but not 100% screwed up. If Hitler were also cruel to dogs, he would have been just a tiny bit worse. :-) The fact that Hitler liked dogs does not make liking dogs evil. Similarly, agreement that we would be better off returning to tradional values does NOT imply agreement on WHICH traditional values. ********************************************************************* >> You presume to be able to read people's minds. >> How do you KNOW the Moral Majority is not sincere? I, too, have my >> doubts about their sincerity. But for God's sake, give them the benefit >> of the doubt! >So that their movement can make inroads into laying a groundwork for >societal restrictions based on THEIR moral code? No thank you, I'll work >in advance rather than waiting around. Falwell's insincerity and double- >facedness is evident every time he appears on the tube. I don't give the >benefit of the doubt to people who seek the "old ways", knowing what such >statements about the "old ways" really mean. But your postings are INEFFECTIVE. If you want to persuede these people on any given topic, e.g. compassion and tolerance for homosexuals, then you must appeal to their most cherished Christian principles. If you start out by attacking their whole perspective, then nobody is going to listen, except those who would have agreed with you beforehand. And then what will you have accomplished? If you can't argue persuasively, then leave the job to someone else. Don't pester the net community with long-winded, ineffective monologues. ******************************************************************** >"There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" > Rich Rosen And you never stop going in circles. Frank Silbermann
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/09/85)
>>>>The Moral Majority and their radical fundamentalist ilk may speak >>>>in sweet voices publicly how they're not Nazis >>>>("See? We love Israel! Therefore we love the Jews!"- >>>Would you prefer that they attack Jewish concerns instead? >>>What's the matter with you? >>I'd prefer that they would be less hypocritical. We've seen how >>fundamentalist leaders are proud to proclaim that god does not >>listen to Jews, only to hear other, more PR-conscious leaders >>"denounce" the statement. The sentiment of that original proclaimer >>is rampant in Christian America, both overtly and subconsciously. > That only proves that there is dissent among Christians. > Even if Jerry Falwell is hypocritical, his assumed hypocracy shows that > he at least ACCEPTS the notion that blatant anti-semitism is unacceptable. > If he is a hypocrite, then removing that hypocracy would only turn him > into a raving anti-semite. I would NOT consider that an improvement. > Perhaps you would. I would in that it would show his movement for what it is, as all of these "let's go back to the old ways" movements really are. And that's my point. They hide under the veneer of "the old days were simpler, better, more predictable", and they appeal manipulatively and emotionally to their followers that way. But they hide what the consequences of their "going back" would be: loss of rights by people (blacks, Jews, non-religious people, women, homosexuals, etc.) who have worked to gain what they now have (which for some hasn't yet been much). They complain about the deterioration of the family. What they're really afraid of is the independence of individuals: without the controlling influence of a head-of-household and a family that is blindly adhered to, they and their movement haven't got a leg to stand on. Going back to the old ways, raising children to believe in that garbage, increases their membership and thus their power base. > The fact that Hitler liked dogs does not make liking dogs evil. Similarly, > agreement that we would be better off returning to tradional values > does NOT imply agreement on WHICH traditional values. Falwell and his lik make clear which values they are talking about. When you get down to it, their values are no different than those of the Identity Christians. Except that the IC's are overt and more than willing to use violence (in the name of god, how "christian") to get their way. Falwell is more interested in manipulating people into seeing his way. > But your postings are INEFFECTIVE. > If you want to persuede these people on any given topic, > e.g. compassion and tolerance for homosexuals, > then you must appeal to their most cherished Christian principles. > If you start out by attacking their whole perspective, > then nobody is going to listen, except those who would have agreed > with you beforehand. And then what will you have accomplished? > If you can't argue persuasively, then leave the job to someone else. > Don't pester the net community with long-winded, ineffective monologues. I could say the same for your monologues. There are obviously people who aren't going to be swayed by showing them either flaws in their beliefs, or contradictions between their professed beliefs and their actions. I've found such people respond by claiming you're attacking them rather than thinking about what you've said. >>>The Identity Christian movement preaches racial hatred and anti-semitism. >>>Though some members of the Moral Majority might be racist, the group as a >>>whole does not preach such poison. This is an important difference. >>>How much help to you expect to get from the Christians in fighting >>>the Don Black's of the world when you constantly insult them >>>IN THEIR OWN NEWSGROUP! [SILBERMANN] >>Insult? You mean open their belief systems to scrutiny? >>What I "attack" is the foundations of a belief system which >>I have seen gaping holes in. A belief system that some would >>propose as THE one on which societal morality MUST be based. >>I'll continue to do what I'm doing as long as the threat continues. [ROSEN] > I have nothing against your pointing out inconsistencies within Christianity. > That is your right. But do it from within a Christian perspective > or do it in another newsgroup. Leave net.christian for the Christians. We've been through this before. A public forum is a public forum. It doesn't "belong" to anyone or any group. There is a private mailing list in existence which is a private forum. I post general topics to net.religion, otherwise I post to specific group(s) (and possibly the general group as well). -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (05/10/85)
In article <948@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (alias Arthur Pewtey) writes: > >It is becoming apparent that the Don Black persona was more than likely a >fraud perpetrated by DEC employees. The fact that Don Black is the name of a >leader of the Alabama (?) KKK, plus the fact that Ken Arndt was conspicuously >absent (uncharacteristically so) during this whole affair (with some of >"Black's" material echoing his style), are factors leading to this conclusion. >Would an actual person who actually worked for DEC who actually believed what >was said actually leave his actual name? Nonetheless, "Black's" words are >worth looking at for what they represent. Some may take this as some sort of >excuse to say "Now you see why I didn't bother speaking out!" 20/20 hindsight. >-- >"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 Well, this intrigued me. I contacted a friend at Dec, who used the online Employee Locator Facility Database to look for "Don Black", although this would of course prove nothing, since the EZNet allows the same kinds of forgery of "from" information that Rich uses to put in his amusing aliases. There are TWO gentlemen named Don[ald] Black who work at Dec; both at sites in the continental US. There could be others who work at other sites on the EZNet who aren't in the ELF database; it only covers some US sites, and there are well over 5000 machines on the Dec EZNet with an average of 25 people per machine. Either of these two gentlemen are as likely to be the person posting the Identity "Christian" nonsense; Arndt has never seemed to support that kind of stupidity except when he wanted to whip Rich into a frothing rage. Sorry, Rich, but I regret to inform you that the evidence does not support your conjecture; it is just too likely that Black is a separate person. Hutch
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/11/85)
> In article <948@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (alias Arthur Pewtey) writes: > > > >It is becoming apparent that the Don Black persona was more than likely a > >fraud perpetrated by DEC employees. The fact that Don Black is the name of a > >leader of the Alabama (?) KKK, plus the fact that Ken Arndt was conspicuously > >absent (uncharacteristically so) during this whole affair (with some of > >"Black's" material echoing his style), are factors leading to this conclusion. > >Would an actual person who actually worked for DEC who actually believed what > >was said actually leave his actual name? Nonetheless, "Black's" words are > >worth looking at for what they represent. Some may take this as some sort of > >excuse to say "Now you see why I didn't bother speaking out!" 20/20 > >hindsight. > Well, this intrigued me. I contacted a friend at Dec, who used the online > Employee Locator Facility Database to look for "Don Black", although this > would of course prove nothing, since the EZNet allows the same kinds of > forgery of "from" information that Rich uses to put in his amusing aliases. > > There are TWO gentlemen named Don[ald] Black who work at Dec; both at sites in > the continental US. There could be others who work at other sites on the > EZNet who aren't in the ELF database; it only covers some US sites, and there > are well over 5000 machines on the Dec EZNet with an average of 25 people per > machine. Either of these two gentlemen are as likely to be the person posting > the Identity "Christian" nonsense; Arndt has never seemed to support that > kind of stupidity except when he wanted to whip Rich into a frothing rage. > > Sorry, Rich, but I regret to inform you that the evidence does not support > your conjecture; it is just too likely that Black is a separate person. See? All it takes is a little evidence to prove me wrong. I've been told that others who have actually spoken to a Don Black at DEC can assure me that he is real and believes what he says. Others who have engaged in arguments with me or intend to in the future would be well advised to follow Mr. Hutchison's example provided above: supply some worthwhile evidence, draw some viable conclusions, and show how they conflict with my own conclusions. A major change of pace from the usual way people rebut my articles (e.g., quoting bogus statistics to make me look bad, calling me names, etc.). -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/15/85)
> We've been through this before. A public forum is a public forum. It > doesn't "belong" to anyone or any group. There is a private mailing list in > existence which is a private forum. I post general topics to net.religion, > otherwise I post to specific group(s) (and possibly the general group as > well). > -- > Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. > Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr Bull paddies, Rich! The net is a limited bandwidth channel. There are many limitations, chief among them the time that most of us can spend reading netnews. Any individual can abuse the channel by flooding it with noise. Noise, remember, is any unwanted signal energy or perturbation. Fact is, Rich, you are loudly talking about how you can't stand hearing others telling people what to believe and preaching tolerance yourself while flooding the common medium with repeated slurs on other peoples' beliefs. Even when you are speaking in reasnable tones of voice, you are repeating the same propaganda that you subjected us to the week before. Proclaiming your virtues while your actions contradict your words is a powerful technique of propaganda: it is called The Big Lie. The USSR is very good at it, and you are not half bad at it yourself. But we don't want to know how well you present the Big Lie. We who use these groups for their chartered purpose -- which is NOT prosthlytization, Rich -- we would appreciate it if you were to stop prosthletizing for your own beliefs. In ``How To Win Friends and Influence People (Revised for the 80's) Dale Carnagie's wife (who was responsible for the revision) tells about the time that Dr. Martin Luther King publicly praised a black air force officer who had just become the first black general in that branch of the armed forces. Someone took him to task: how could a pacifist possibly praise a man who had just gotten more authority in the waging of war? Dr. King replied ``I judge men by their standards, not mine.'' Rich Rosen would do well to profit from this great man's example. All you do is assign evil motives to those whose beliefs differ from yours. In plain language: Stuff it, Rich. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/20/85)
In article <pyuxd.962> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: > >> I have nothing against your pointing out inconsistencies within Christianity. >> That is your right. But do it from within a Christian perspective >> or do it in another newsgroup. Leave net.christian for the Christians. >We've been through this before. A public forum is a public forum. It doesn't >"belong" to anyone or any group. There is a private mailing list in existence >which is a private forum. I post general topics to net.religion, otherwise >I post to specific group(s) (and possibly the general group as well). Nonsense. We must obey certain conventions to keep the network feasible. One of the conventions is keeping our postings in the appropriate newsgroups. For instance, if I want to find a long-lost friend, I might wish to post to net.general, to ensure that EVERYBODY sees my posting. But that would be a net-etiquette violation. Such postings must go to net.people, EVEN THOUGH SOME PEOPLE I MIGHT WISH TO READ MY POSTING DON'T SUBSCRIBE. I must respect the right of people to choose not to see what I want them to read. In specific, net.religion.christian is for Christians to discuss Christianity and their religious experiences. Non-Christians like me may use this group to request information, or to participate (if they can do so) from a Christian point of view. Analogously for net.religion.jewish. Discussions about whether Christianity is a good idea in the first place is a (higher level) meta-discussion, which belongs in a meta-newsgroup. We have such a newgroup. It is called net.religion. This is the group for inter-religion debates. This is where your anti-Bible postings belong. Please respect the net-etiquette. Too many people disreguarding the the newsgroup definitions will drive the net to moderated newsgroups. Frank Silbermann
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/22/85)
>>We've been through this before. A public forum is a public forum. It doesn't >>"belong" to anyone or any group. There is a private mailing list in existence >>which is a private forum. I post general topics to net.religion, otherwise >>I post to specific group(s) (and possibly the general group as well). [ROSEN] > Nonsense. We must obey certain conventions to keep the network feasible. > One of the conventions is keeping our postings in the appropriate newsgroups. > For instance, if I want to find a long-lost friend, I might wish to post > to net.general, to ensure that EVERYBODY sees my posting. But that would > be a net-etiquette violation. Such postings must go to net.people, > EVEN THOUGH SOME PEOPLE I MIGHT WISH TO READ MY POSTING DON'T SUBSCRIBE. > I must respect the right of people to choose not to see what I want them > to read. > In specific, net.religion.christian is for Christians to discuss Christianity > and their religious experiences. Non-Christians like me may use this group to > request information, or to participate (if they can do so) from a Christian > point of view. Analogously for net.religion.jewish. As I said, we've been through this before. The reason for the creation of the newsgroup net.religion.christian was (at least in part) to get the arguments over specific points on the "validity" of Christianity out of the main group. If not that place for them, then what? > Discussions about whether Christianity is a good idea in the first place > is a (higher level) meta-discussion, which belongs in a meta-newsgroup. > We have such a newgroup. It is called net.religion. This is the group > for inter-religion debates. This is where your anti-Bible postings belong. Anti-Bible? As I said above, your knowledge of the history of the groups is apparently limited. > Please respect the net-etiquette. Too many people disreguarding the > the newsgroup definitions will drive the net to moderated newsgroups. What's wrong with moderated newsgroups? It'll cut down on redundancy, inanity, and a lot of the other garbage portions of net communication. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (05/30/85)
Isn't it kinda paradoxical that a discussion labelled "final comments" has been going on for close to two months? Charley Wingate "For the mouse is a creature of great personal valour." -- C. Swift
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/03/85)
Frank Silbermann at UNC writes: > Our location receives net.religion.christian and net.religion.jewish, > but not plain old net.religion. Thus, I did not follow the formation > of net.religion.christian. I merely ass-u-me-ed that net.religion.christian > followed the same rules as net.religion.jewish. I stand corrected. > My apologies to Rich, on that point. > > Frank Silbermann Hmm, I wonder why that could be. Frank, do you happen to know who in particular was responsible for that policy, and when it was instituted at the University? -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/04/85)
> Isn't it kinda paradoxical that a discussion labelled "final comments" has > been going on for close to two months? > > Charley Wingate They were MY final comments on the whole Don Black issue (at the time). Shame we don't bother to change subject lines all the time. > "For the mouse is a creature of great personal valour." -- C. Swift I thought you didn't want to ever bring up again my comments about your not speaking up about incipient Nazism? Oh well... -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr