Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxu.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!houxm!houxu!welsch From: welsch@houxu.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: An open letter to jj Message-ID: <244@houxu.UUCP> Date: Sun, 20-Nov-83 11:25:36 EST Article-I.D.: houxu.244 Posted: Sun Nov 20 11:25:36 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Nov-83 01:08:45 EST Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 224 Dear jj, I take great offense to your comments on net regarding my article. First, please learn to spell my last name. It is Welsch not Welch. I realize you cannot spell definition, or for some obscure reason prefer "defination" which you most likely have documented in a net article someplace, but please do not take liberties with my name. Given the liberties you have taken with spelling I can understand, why you might prefer to use "jj" as opposed to your name. You start with Let us look at Larry Welch's comments on liberals and conservatives. I didn't see one single quote or accurate rephrasing in your article of my comments. Did you think about what I said before banging away. I get the impression from your closing comments I don't have a point. Enough rambling from a broken down mind. that you didn't. Let's continue: He repeats yet again the defination of Conservative and Liberal. He, as have the people before him also have, says that the common use of "liberal" and "conservative" match the dictionary definations. jj, I never once said that the "common use of 'liberal' and 'conservative' match the dictionary definitions." What I did say was that I looked in the dictionary till I found a definition that matched what I believed to be the meanings of liberal and conservative. The full or complete dictionary definition of these words are much longer than what I quoted. However, I believe my uses of the terms match more closely the common usage than yours. You can convince me that you are right if you can provide better evidence than personal experience. Perhaps, if you ran a survey on the net. You do not offer any means for me to convince you. It is clear to me that this assumption (NOT fact, assumption) is completely false. I never made that "assumption." I find it very distasteful to have you put words in my mouth and then say that they are false words. As the Indians would say "jj speaks with a forked tongue." Please stick to what I said, not what you would like to have me say. To continue: According to the net, I am conservative. jj, when was there a poll done on the net to determine what you are? Did the net speak and declare you a conservative? Just for the record, based on your behavior I consider you a reactionary, where a reactionary is a person that has a tendency toward a former and usually outmoded political or social order or policy. More to the point I see you as "reacting" to anybody who says anything which is in slightest degree different than your set of beliefs. I'd be willing to bet that you hit the "-f" keys as soon as you finished perusing my article. I'd be willing to bet that you did not reread my article as you were writing yours. I am not certain of this, but I'd be surprised if this was not case. To continue: This means, according to the net, that I want to ban abortion, have prayer in schools, etc. As the net knows, I am violently opposed to banning abortion, I think prayer in schools MUST be 1) a matter of personal choice ONLY and 2) none of the state's blinking business one way or the other. This by itself points out a contradiction in the defination. jj, I never attributed any of these positions to you. To my knowledge, no one on the net has attributed these positions to you. My definitions of liberal and conservative and my discussion of these terms was so abstract that one cannot say that I attributed positions on compulsory prayer or abortion to anyone. I don't even recall once ever saying you were conservative or you represented a conservative point of view. Are you so used to putting words in other people's mouths that you expect them to put words in yours? Why am I called conservative? Because I don't advocate tossing everything out the window until I know of something better. That's more like Larry's defination of a liberal, but then again we all know that's not even close to reality. Right? jj, who called you a conservative? Do you consider yourself a conservative? You don't say. My definition of liberal did not include the words "toss everything out the window." I find it fascinating how being open minded becomes tossing everything out the window. Being open minded is just the opposite. Liberals, are willing consider all possible solutions, not just old tried and true solutions. If you want to know who toss things out the window, it is the reactionaries like yourself. You are not willing to consider any solutions other than those you propose and you react violently to people saying this. To continue: Let me provide some new definations of: "Political conservative" noun... Best described as an individual who considers situations, including the lessons of history, science, and economics, and who attempts to maximize the general welfare of the population while maintaining a margin of safety and keeping bridges repaired after they've been passed over. Generally considers "morals" as something to be aspired to, and to be built up slowly, and in an as solidly established and defended fashion as possible. First, I completely missed your reference to "keeping bridges repaired after they've been passed over." Is this referring to the general decay of the infra-structure of U.S. which is best characterized by the recent collapse of the a portion of the Connecticut Turnpike and the past collapse of a portion of the West Side highway? Second, Yes I think "true" conservatives meet your definition. John Anderson and N. Rockefeller are examples of conservatives who meet your definition. R. Reagan does not. R. Reagan is a reactionary. He doesn't think so much as he reacts. To continue: "Political Liberal" noun... Best described as an individual who feels that all events, forces, laws, situations, etc must be resolved immediately in the best "moral" fashion, irregardless of safety or practicality. One who places emphasis on equality rather than general improvement. Generally believes that "moral" issues are more important than all others. jj, your definition is not as bad as you might think it is. Let's look at the negation of your statement. First, do non-liberals propose that we take as long as possible or never resolve issues? (I hope not.) Do non-liberals believe that safety more important than morality ie. is it so important that we keep the Russians out that we must become like Russians? (I hope not.) Do non-liberals believe that regardless of how impoverished the masses are that the enrichment of a few at top is preferable, because the total higher? (I hope not.) Do non-liberals believe that "moral" issues like putting people in concentration camps are unimportant? (I hope not). To move on: The goals of both are better life for everyone, and increased freedom for all. The two individuals vary mostly in their willingness to accept slow and steady, as opposed to immediate, gratification of their desired moral state. They base their ideological arguments on the denial of the other's intent. jj, I agree with your statement of goals, I disagree with your statement of variation. The key difference is the willingness of liberals to consider alternate solutions and the willingness of liberals to experiment. Your use of terms "slow, steady, immediate gratification" has bad implications. To continue: Types of individuals not included in either defination: Those who wish to arbitrarily enforce their particular religious, moral, or philosophical viewpoints upon the world, EXCEPT as concerns survival of same. In this excluded class I include Helms, Cranston, Falwell, O'Hare, E. Kennedy, Thurmond, Mondale, Hatch, Kohmeni, Castro, Batista, and many, many others. I do not include Reagan. I think by including Cranston and O'Hare in this list you are doing a disservice to them. To your vast surprise I agree with your evaluation of Mondale and Kennedy. I would also add the names of Tip O'Neill and R. Reagan. The definations are certainly slanted, but I suspect I've slanted them the other way from what is usually done on this net. I realize that it's fun to attact conservative people, that it's popular, and that it feels good to aspire to "moral superiority". jj, yes they certainly are slanted. My article was not an attack on conservative people, nor do I think that it's popular. However your next comments: I also realize that such attacks are exactly the same kind of dehumanizing attacks that have been used throughout history against Christians, Jews, Moslems, Amerinds, Blacks, and so on. ******I think that such behavior is completely unforgivable in a person who claims to be superior.****** are slanderous. Why, cause at the beginning of your article you stated that you were looking at my comments on liberals and conservatives. You have associated me, falsely, as attacking conservatives, and you have now made a moral statement on an action I never did. This guilt by association is McCarthyism in its worst form, and for you to have fabricated the association is worse. I believe you owe me an apology. To continue: I also think that the current posturing on the Grenadian issue demonstrates just how little events really matter to the political process. The conservative factions are accused of believing only the government, when such accusations are clear and utter falshoods. The liberal factions attack the action involved, claiming that the government's statements are all lies, without appearing to examine the situation. The conservatives respond that the liberals are liars. The liberals respond that the conservatives are subhuman. And so on. and on. and on and on ad infinitem. I disagree. I believe that liberals are for the most part genuinely interested in knowing what the facts are, whether or not from government sources. I also think conservatives are interested in the facts. It are the knee jerk reactionaries like yourself who are not interested in finding out just what the facts are. Finally jj you say: I don't have a point. Enough rambling from a broken down mind. I couldn't agree with you more!! Attack! Attack! Attack! is what I see, with no point at all. No wonder your mind in "broken down". Larry Welsch houxu!welsch