Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Gillette on the Centrality of Antisemitism in Christianity,
Message-ID: <218@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-Nov-84 11:51:55 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.218
Posted: Wed Nov  7 11:51:55 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 19:39:38 EST
References: <1667@ucf-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 53

Gack.  Yiri, can you lighten up on the ad-hominem attacks?  I filtered these
out of just one of your responses.  They make it hard to follow your arguments.
Each of these could be deleted or replaced by a one line statement of opinion.

> You are indeed very slow
> and/or very myopic since you still haven't even figured that out.

> Given Jeff's quickness in picking up
> these other points, I don't see any reasonable prospects for much
> progress however. If you can't figure out the simple things, you surely
> can't figure out more complex things.

> I don't think they need your
> rather feeble help.

> Not everyone is that foolish. This is really getting old hat. Do you
> really think that everyone has such a short memory they are going to
> forget about that just because you choose to ignore its significance?
> Why do you keep spouting the same old drivel? If you don't have anything
> new you should have realized by now that repeating the old stuff isn't
> going to make it any more persuasive.

> You're supposition of my statement is illogical and betrays your
> great arrogance and presuptuousness in continuing to think you
> understand First Century Judaism. You don't understand any kind of
> Judaism. There is no point in suggesting that you go to a rabbi and
> learn what tied all of the early Jewish sects together as Jewish.
> I suspect some of the netters however, are more scholarly.

> I really think it is
> reasonable to conclude at this point that most netters can see through
> Mr. Gillette's feebleness on the peripheries of logic. The drivel below
> regarding Mr. Gillette's self-proclaimed expertness in Judaism neither
> needs nor deserves comment except to note that it does indeed reinforce
> my assertions that he is best at making assertions about which he knows
> nothing. Other reasons for not responding to Mr. Gillette's articles in
> the future include a) I think most netters recognize his lack of
> credibility and b) his reasoning is of such trivial nature that I
> suspect most netters don't really need explanation to figure that out
> and c) I think most netters are getting tired of hearing the same dreary
> (and thinly disguised) repititious arguments from him which don't merit
> repititive responses to the boredom of the net in general.

> Let me not be called a student of religion. That is what you claim to be
> and I have no wish to be on your level nor in your category. I'd rather
> be recognized in other areas: logic, computer science, risk management,
> personnel management, economics, etc. I also find that people in areas
> other than 'religion' tend to have far more acute minds and are frequently
> far more objective, pragmatic and scholarly. Certainly you have borne
> this out eloquently.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh