Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: To Wingate on Rosen
Message-ID: <4528@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 23:58:56 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4528
Posted: Wed Apr  3 23:58:56 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 15:10:38 EST
References: <24035@lanl.ARPA>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 42

In article <24035@lanl.ARPA> wkp@lanl.ARPA writes:

>It is action that counts.  And while many of your friends who discuss
>"real presence" or "transubstantiation" theologized with Black, it was only
>people like Tim or Rich or Byron or S. Aldrich or many others who saw
>the inherent evil in that man's spouting.  Sorry, Charley.  You'll have
>to think up better excuses why your friends didn't respond (didn't get
>a chance to, were busy, 'rn' keys, etc.) or responded inappropriately
>(were misunderstood, didn't know, etc.).

How presumptious.  You really claim to know why people choose not to post.
The four people mentioned above are those who decided it was necessary to
respond.  Your cheap accusations (frankly, I dont' recall discussing
transubstantiation with anyone recently, and certainly not with Don Black)
have no substance.  Without some real proof that the people you condemn DID
read Black's articles, and assented to them, your charges are rubbish.

>I'm really losing patience with some of your excuses.  If you have
>a personal grudge against Rosen or Maroney, I don't care.  At least
>they saw racism for what it was, and FOUGHT against it.

They did nothing of the kind.  The influence of USENET over the world is so
infinitesimally small that it isn't worth bothering with.  It's very easy to
sit back in your office, prop up your feet, take up the keyboard, and flame
away at whatever catches your fancy.  It also has almost no effect upon the
world, especially when it is done so regularly and with such self-
righteousness.

>By the way, in your article you called Byron a "christian".  Using
>your notation ("christian" instead of "Christian"), that's not
>very complementary is it?  Or aren't Gnostic Christians Christian?

This doesn't make any sense to me.  I recall a discussion a while back
concerning Byron's beliefs.  About the only sense I can extract from this is
that Bill has joined the Rich Rosen "Read Things Into Upper and Lower Case"
club of putting things in my posting which aren't there.  Now watch closely:

 Gnostic christian==gnostic Christian==Gnostic Christian==gnostic christian

Clear enough?  (BTW, Byron, if I misread you, feel free to correct me.)

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe