Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site spanky.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!hocda!spanky!ka From: ka@spanky.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Rabbit!jj is flaming Message-ID: <435@spanky.UUCP> Date: Thu, 11-Aug-83 14:49:39 EDT Article-I.D.: spanky.435 Posted: Thu Aug 11 14:49:39 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Aug-83 05:12:12 EDT References: <1781@rabbit.UUCP> Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, N. J. Lines: 90 Over in net.politics rabbit!jj has been writing flames in opposition to flaming, without being able to see the contradiction in doing so. He starts out in heavy sarcasm mode: I really appreciate how all of my critics can quote chapter and verse of their standard arguments without reading what they're criticizing. His critics show evidence of having read what rabbit!jj said. On the other hand, I see no evidence that rabbit!jj read his article after he wrote it; if he had I don't see how he could have failed to recognize that his article was filled with the same irrationality that he condemns in his opponents. I noticed that the main respondant used lots of indications where I misspelled words, etc, as emotional ammunition, further proving my point about emotional deception. Rabbit!jj doesn't say which article he is referring to; I assume is talking about <4976@cornell.UUCP>. David Wright does indeed write "[sic]" after errors in rabbit!jj's article rather than fixing the errors. This practice is defensible only if the errors have some significance. In this case they seem to bear out my contention that not much thought went into rabbit!jj's original article. I notice that my main detractor thinks that, because he can find fault he is superior. The concept of fascism comes to mind again. I am unable to find where anybody has made that claim. Could we have quotes please? Or at least telling us which article you are refering to rather than forcing us to guess? That way I could at least be sure I was looking in the right spot. I also remember the someone else's comments about the way the Democrats have a way of complaining for political effect, even when they don't have any idea what to do when they deceive enough people to get elected. Apparantly it's ok to criticize even if one doesn't have a better idea. This is a wonderful example of how to attack while being so fuzzy that a response is very difficult. This appears to be an attack on the Democrats, but it is phrased in such a way that any specific counterclaim can be met with an injured reply to the effect that "I never said that!" A careful reading of the first sentence shows that rabbit!jj says nothing about his own postion; he is merely stating someone else's opinion. The person who notices this may still feel that some weight should be given to the opinion because somebody believes it. But who is this "someone"? From the context rabbit!jj appears to be talking about a netnews article. The fact that I have been unable to locate any such article leads me to suspect that the "someone" is a figment of rabbit!jj's imagination, but there is no way I can be sure. I challenge rabbit!jj to show otherwise by pro- ducing the article. I further have to admit that I'm amused that my strongest detractors argue that "Well, rabbit!jj makes a lot of money, so of course he can't be trusted. Did you ever visit the South Bronx?" Such cheap shots are what being a Democrat seems to be all about, Once again rabbit!jj doesn't say which articles he is referring to. I was able to identify at most one of these articles: <167@tty3b.UUCP>. The body of this article is reproduced here: I just have to laugh at someone who probably makes more than $35,000 per year and lives in upper-class New Jersey (rabbit is a MH host) talking about 'welfare perks'. How far from reality we must make ourselves. (Hope you enjoyed your vacation. Visit the South Bronx sometime and see everyone 'living it up'.) This article claims that rabbit!jj is *uninformed*, not that he is lying, so if this is one of article that rabbit!jj is refering to, he has mis- understood it. (I am interpreting the phrase "cannot be trusted" as meaning "has been telling lies" because rabbit!jj says a few lines later that he has been accused of being a "fascist lier.") I *will* admit that <167@tty3b.UUCP> is a flame. I can understand why--it is a lot easier to reply to a flame with another flame rather than with a reasoned response. The way rabbit!jj writes, it takes at least a paragraph to point out the irrationality and "emotional deception" implicit in each of his sentences. Here I have quoted only a small fraction of his article and responded to only part of each quote. I do not condemn rabbit!jj for writing a flame, even when the flame is a logical absurdity like a flame against flaming. However, a logical abusrdity is only worth reading for the entertainment value; it can never advance the point of view of its author. Therefore rabbit!jj's articles should have been posted to net.flame. Net.politics is reserved for ar- ticles discussing politics, and a logical absurdity can hardly bwe viewed as a discussion of anything. Kenneth Almquist