Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site shark.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxi!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!tektronix!orca!shark!hutch
From: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian,net.religion.jewish
Subject: Re: The writings of Don Black (Bravo Rich!)
Message-ID: <1291@shark.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 02:27:25 EST
Article-I.D.: shark.1291
Posted: Thu Mar 21 02:27:25 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 01:30:51 EST
References: <653@pyuxd.UUCP> <200@ihu1n.UUCP>
Reply-To: hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 58
Xref: watmath net.religion:6224 net.religion.christian:495 net.religion.jewish:1705
Summary: 

In article <200@ihu1n.UUCP> amra@ihu1n.UUCP (s. aldrich) writes:
>
> ===> BELOW IS A QUOTE FROM: Rich Rosen's Recent Posting <=====
>
>
>> I've asked what I'm about to ask before, but perhaps it got swallowed up
>> in the larger article of which the question was a part.  So I'll ask again.
>> 
>> Where have we seen the "christian" (to use Wingate's terminology) response
>> to the articles of Don Black?  In his articles, he has put forth a
>> combination of intense hypocrisy, lies, and hatred, all in support of his
>> very "christian" ideas.  In response, what have we seen?  One "christian"
>> quoting scripture to *defend* Black's pronouncement of gays as scum in
>>  replying
>> to an article that expressed dismay at the original Black article.  Another
>> "christian" supporting him in his labelling of any anti-racist force that
>> works against the status quo as being antichrist and Communist.
>> ... (more, elided to save space -Hutch )
>> 
>> Back to the topic at hand.  We have heard from the non-christians on the
>> venom that Black has put forth.  Where is the "christian" response?.......  
> ====> END OF SELECTED QUOTATION <=======
>> 					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr
>
>  ***************
>
>   RIGHT ON RICH!!! I would also like to hear some replies from
> these "individuals". Seems that the "silent majority" {:-)} has
> spoken again in the usual manner. I doubt if there will be many "replies"
> at all. 
>
>   PEACE & BEST WISHES
> From The Atoms Currently Associated As:
>  Steve Aldrich (ihnp4!ihu1n!amra)

Speaking as one of these "individuals" in the "silent majority" which
is being taken to task, I have but one thing to say:

WHAT ARTICLE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

You take us to task for not sharing your political beliefs in newsgroups
which are supposed to be for discussing religion, because we don't react
to an article which many of us have never seen!

Remember, gentle people, that the propogation delay between major clusters
on this net can exceed two weeks!  I never saw any article by Don Black.
I can assure you that if I had seen an article presenting such outrageous
merde as Rich implies was in the alleged article, that I would certainly
have responded publicly.  Most of the .christian readers know this from
reading the group for a while.  So, please, don't assume that silence implies
consent or agreement.  In many cases it merely implies innocent ignorance.

(Rich .. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to get furiously angry when someone
 reads things into your writings which aren't there, then to turn around
 and globally condemn us for our agreement with something we may not even
 know about? )

Hutch