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: Demonic Possession
Message-ID: <4529@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 00:54:25 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.4529
Posted: Thu Apr  4 00:54:25 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 15:12:26 EST
References: <1445@decwrl.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 46

In article <1445@decwrl.UUCP> black@nisysg.DEC writes:

>      I hope you all see what I mean, about who is repressing whom.  
> Just step one little bit out of the "established" chain of thought, and
> WHAMMO!  And if it goes too far, the ADL starts calling your 
> associates.  Smear tactics almost always work.  (Do the Knights of
> Colombus make slanderous phone calls?)  

Well, they haven't worked too well for Don.

>      Rosen's tactics are exactly the point that I tried to get across--
> there are people in this world who want to limit American freedom.  
> They will stoop to no end to crush any thing or anybody that opposes 
> them.  They oppose any form of Christianity, any form of Islam, any
> form of Deism.  Hate and physical abuse were exactly the tactics used
> against Zundel and the Institute for Historical Review.  As Americans
> in a free society, should we condone this?  Should we not speak out
> against it?

I can't verify the statements about Zundel, but, based on Blakc's record so
far, I'd need some strong evidence.  As for tactics, the only real difference
between the two as far as argument style is concerned is that Rich is a
little closer to reality, and Don has a more reasonable-souding tone of
voice.  Misstatements, over-generalizations, arguments from ignorance, and
ad-hominem arguments seem to be par for the course for either.

>      Only time will tell which one of us is right, me or Rosen.  You 
> see for yourselves who is calling whom dirty names.  You see for your-
> selves who is getting personal, who is using smear tactics.  Christ 
> told us in Matthew 7:16-20, by their fruits shall you know them.  I 
> thought the net was for the exchanging of religious belief.  It's 
> fairly obvious who turned it into a personal hate campaign. 

Well, DOn's accusation against Rich may be correct (judge ye for yourself),
but Don has also revealed his fruits, and rotten they are.

>      There is a book on the market, "Hostage to the Devil," by Malachi
> Martin, a Jesuit.  Father Martin was an exorcist for a number of years.
> He decribes the many "Possessions" he has encountered.  One of the
> attributes common to the excorcisms is that the closer he got to the 
> identity of the occupying spirits, the more vile, the more personal
> the attacks became upon himself.  Sound familiar?

Now HERE's a novel argument technique.

Charley Wingate   umcp-cs!mangoe