rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/23/85)
>> Rich Rosen's articles have an extremely low signal-to-noise ratio. > They consist mainly of Rich stating his axiomatic beliefs as though > they were proven facts, and following that with a logical argument based > on those beliefs to prove that his opponent(s) are "wrong". > > Not to mention arguments carried on by mail. I got involved with a discussion > with Rich recently (it started from the "emotional responsibility" discussion > in net.singles, if anyone remembers all the flames THAT caused) that rapidly > degenerated into multi hundred line flames about how I was ignoring the > "facts" (his beliefs) and how "wrong" I was for believing the way I do. Since you have seen fit to use a supposedly non-flaming newsgroup like net.news.group to tar other people, and since YOU yourself brought up this mail exchange, perhaps you would not mind if it was explained how this discussion (in which you posted multi-hundred line tomes yourself) actually came to a close. Greg: "Anyone who doesn't see the choices they have is responsible for their current condition." Rich: "How can you say this? If you have not had the learning necessary to know about these other choices, how can you be held responsible? And aren't there circumstances in which one has no control over events?" Greg: "No." Rich "No? What about [EXAMPLES OFFERED]..." Greg: [FOUR ITERATIONS LATER] "All right, yes, but any of those people can lift themselves up and see the choices they have and simply get themselves out of whatever predicament they are in." Rich: "Anybody? What about people with no education, with children to support, living in situations where there are no opportunities, needing education but unable to get it..." Greg: "It's just a matter of priorities. They don't have to have kids. And if they do, it's just a matter of reprioritizing to get what you want. Anyone can do it." Rich: "You know this from experience?" Greg: "Yes, I lived through such a period in my life where I had to get my education while working a low paying job. ... ... Of course, I did get money from my parents..." Rich: "WHAT? You have the nerve to claim that your situation is reasonably compared to those of the people in situations I described? How dare you proclaim that they can do 'it' because you did 'it', when in reality you didn't do 'it' at all?" Greg: [DEAD, UTTER, COMPLETE SILENCE... ... ... ... ... ... ...] It seems when you say to others "I think you are seeing what YOU want to see and not what is really happening," as you said in a recent article, you somehow feel this doesn't apply to you. Please take any further discussion to private mail, there is no need to clog net.news.group with this. > Do I REALLY get to vote on this? This is too good to be true! :-) Enjoy yourself, Greg. You have shown off your arrogance and manipulativeness very well. What WAS the purpose of your describing (what YOU wanted to see in) our mail correspondence? Enlightening other readers of net.news.group about problems with the net? Providing useful information on how the net can be "saved"? Or swinging a personal axe? You and Thau will go far together. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr