Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site hou3c.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!houxm!hocda!hou3c!ka
From: ka@hou3c.UUCP (Kenneth Almquist)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Public responses
Message-ID: <146@hou3c.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-Dec-83 13:23:43 EST
Article-I.D.: hou3c.146
Posted: Mon Dec 19 13:23:43 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 20-Dec-83 06:45:19 EST
References: <686@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 48

Dave Norris objects that public responses to his article assumed that
he was trying to make a case for Christianity on the spot.  Although
I don't think that is true of my response; it appears that other
responders were more astute than I was.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that I am opposed to integrating
the schools and want to convince other people of my views.  I could
of course post an article to the net stating my opinion, but the problem
with this is that people with different opinions will post responses to
my article and so people will have a chance to see both sides of the
argument.  This is no good unless I am able to support my position
better than other people, so I develop a plan to keep opposing
opinions off the net.  Rather than stating my opinions, I pose them
as questions like
> If I proved that blacks were less intelligent than whites, would
  you want your child to be held back by a racially integrated
  classroom? <
In a further attempt to shield my views from public criticism, I write,
"Stop!  If you reacted negatively to these questions you are obviously
prejudiced..."

Regrettably, some people are astute enough not to fall for this, and
they write articles supporting integration.  All is not lost.  I write
a flame attacking these articles for failing to address the subject
and claim that their failure to address the subject is proof of prejudice.
This is a risky action because any article I post is likely to draw more
responses, but I have to do something to discredit the opinions of my
opponents.  In order to make it unnecessary for me to respond again, I
suggest that people use my flame as a response to any future discussion.

Meanwhile, I have a rich harvest of letters mailed to me by various
people.  (I have been careful to make clear that my flame is directed
only against posted responses.)  I can now *mail* my arguments to all
these people individually.  While some of them will of course discover
the flaws in my arguments, they will probably mail me, leaving the other
people convinced.  And of course, I can keep responding to objections
with new arguments until I get an argument that my correspondent is unable
to see through.

How does this compare with what Dave Norris has been doing?  I don't
know what Dave's intentions were, and he may very well have had no
intention of squelching debate.  Never the less, I am entitled to call
attention to the effect of his actions.  Fortunately, the net is always
open.  If you receive a letter from David which claims to give a proof
of the correctness of Christianity and you want to know if there are
any flaws in the proof, you can always post it to the net and ask for
comments.
					Kenneth Almquist