Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Dr. Emmanuel Wu)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Wingate's article excerpting technique speaks for itself
Message-ID: <858@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Apr-85 16:27:13 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.858
Posted: Thu Apr  4 16:27:13 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 04:54:26 EST
References: <273@unm-la.UUCP> <4493@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY:  We have no slogan
Lines: 134

>>Speaking of Gillette, he seems to think that Don Black is a good
>>'ole boy with just a lot of questions (like "What death camps?").    
>>This scares me.  Either Gillette is incredibly naive or incredibly
>>deceptive.  Even at the finale, Black made the following comment:
>>ONLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS LIKE RICH ROSEN AND BYRON HOWES WHO HAVE
>>CONSISTENTLY ARGUED FOR REASON AND KNOWLEDGE IN HUMAN DECISIONS
>>AS OPPOSED TO SUPERSTITION AND INTOLERANCE MADE THEIR VOICES 
>>HEARD 100% AGAINST DON BLACK.  [BILL PETER]

If I ever needed proof that Wingate was no better than a Don Black,
as if his earlier actions weren't enough, here it is.  The above
section, from his own article in reply to Bill Peter, is one the
most flagrant misquoting out of context text-rearranging hatchet jobs
I have ever seen on this net!!  Or anywhere else, by a supposedly
reasonable person claiming to be presenting evidence.  

The actual text of that section of the article, as reproduced below,
clearly shows the difference between the words of the author (Bill Peter)
and Charley's misapplication and rearrangement of his words, leaving out
significant sections, and misconstruing the intentions of the author.
(Note how the section above attempts to attribute the capitalized statement
to Don Black, by means of omission of a whole section of relevant facts
that Wingate the "christian" chose to leave out.  '>>' = the section;
'**' = what Wingate excised)

>> Speaking of Gillette, he seems to think that Don Black is a good
>> 'ole boy with just a lot of questions (like "What death camps?").    
>> This scares me.  Either Gillette is incredibly naive or incredibly
>> deceptive.  Even at the finale, Black made the following comment:
** 
** >This same person would slam the jail door on Ernst Zundel or provide the
** >match to burn a library.  
** 
** Does Ernst Zundel represent an entity that it is important for
** Jeff Gillette to defend?  Ernst Zundel is a balding, middle aged man
** who was born in Germany in 1939 with a passion to rehabilitate the repu-     
** tation of Hitler and the Third Reich.  He calls his house his BUNKER,
** AND HAS A SCALE MODEL OF AUSCHWITZ IN HIS BASEMENT!  (With only one
** oven, of course:  remember?  no death camps).                      
** 
**! What were the supernaturalists doing while Black was vilifying the
**! Jewish people?  Almost nothing.  Reverend Bob advised Don Black that it
**! will be difficult for christians to proselytize to the jews if "they
**! think we wish to color them gone."  Marchionni got into a theological
**! debate with Black, scolding his critics, and commenting on how he
**! "had no qualms with Black."  Jeff Gillette thought that Black was
**! another victim of Rich Rosen's christian baiting (not mentioning
**! how he himself was once a charter member of the Yiri Ben-David
**! baiting club).
>> 
>> ONLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS LIKE RICH ROSEN AND BYRON HOWES WHO HAVE
>> CONSISTENTLY ARGUED FOR REASON AND KNOWLEDGE IN HUMAN DECISIONS
>> AS OPPOSED TO SUPERSTITION AND INTOLERANCE MADE THEIR VOICES 
>> HEARD 100% AGAINST DON BLACK.

I can understand why he left out the "**!" section: it certainly
pointed out things that reflected badly on his peer group (Bob Brown,
Vince Marchionni, and Jeff Gillette).  In fact, given the size of all these
articles, I can understand leaving out large sections in general.  But note
how the way this man leaves out sections causes the intended meaning of the
original article to change drastically.  Purposely?  Given the way this has
happened in the past, I'd probably be right in saying yes.  This will
undoubtedly prompt Charles to go searching through archives to find examples
of what I did wrong so he can show the world that I'm flawed.  I admit to
being flawed, Charles, and committing errors of action and judgment.  Your
actions go far beyond errors in judgment.  It's apparent that your only
concern is to vilify me, going to any lame extremes that you can.  I don't
have to go to lame extremes to show what you've done:  it's there for all
to show.  All I need to do is reproduce it.  Rather than misquoting and
inventing mythological statistics that wouldn't have any bearing on anything
even if they WERE true.  Let's face it, chump.  You claim to be a Christian.
You are blatantly unwilling to commit to denouncing things that are (by
your own standards) virulently anti-Christian, claiming some sort of
immunity because of your self-imposed label that says "I'm not one of them".
But you are more than willing to stick your neck out to smear another human
being who has come forward and asked how you can remain silent and not care
and still claim to be an exempt Christian.

> But Rich argues against EVERYTHING to which anyone has ever attached the
> name of Christ, and thus does not count.  Byron Howes, if I recall correctly,
> is sort of a gnostic christian.  Bill, if you are going to claim that Rich
> argues for reason, you are all wet.  As far as I can tell, Rich is arguing
> for shouting at the top of your lungs.

As far as you can go to extremes to make that claim.  Does your paragraph
above mean that only a "charter member" can make such statements?   I'd
say you're the one that needs the towel, Charley.  Or perhaps a blow dryer.
Hot air seems to suit you.

> I too was puzzled at Jeff's response, but unlike many on this net, I do not
> presume to know what's happening down there at Duke.  I rather had the
> impression that he simply had not seen much of the argument.  I fully
> apreciate his reluctance to jump into the fray, seeing as how Rich had
> decided to turn the whole thing into a kind of litmus test (one, I might
> add, which could not be passed).

We've seen more than one Christian finally come forward and "pass", as if
someone was giving out grades.  I would think that a true Christian would
be more concerned with the ultimate test and the ultimate grade, but
apparently Charley either already has the answers for the final or uses
crib notes.

>>It is true that later Charley Wingate and Richard Carnes made
>>their voices heard.  And even Marchionni later said that Black's
>>positions were not of the RC church, and went back to discussing
>>transubstantion.  BUT IF IT WERE NOT FOR PEOPLE LIKE ROSEN OR MARONEY
>>OR HOSHEN, WE WOULD BE STILL LISTENING TO DEBATES ON WHETHER OR NOT
>>THE JEWS ARE CHRIST-KILLERS, ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A HOLOCAUST,
>>OR WHETHER OR NOT JESUS WAS AN ARYAN AND HITLER WAS HIS PROPHET.

> The last statement may be true, but not for the reasons Bill implies.  This
> whole thing had apparently passed through several rounds of replies before
> I was even aware of it.  Having 'rn' at my disposal, I do not hesitate to
> edit out great reams of material.  It appears therefore that we would NOT
> have ever heard these arguments had not Rich and his ilk drawn them out of
> the man.  I suspect my experience parallels that of many others on the net.
> When you start to tar people because they do not respond to articles,
> remember that the net does not represent ideal communications, or even GOOD
> communications.  Things take time to propagate, if they propagate, and I'm
> sure that a lot of material expires before I ever see it, even as often as
> I read this stuff.

Amazing how the tone has changed from "how dare you demand that I speak up!"
to "it's the fault of a flawed communications system with the net".  I'm
with Bill Peter:  your excuses are getting lamer and lamer.  ("...had not
Rich and his ilk [WHAT ILK IS THAT, CHARLES?] drawn [these arguments] out
of the man [Black]..."?  So now it's MY fault that Black spoke out in the
first place?  If I (along with my "ilk") had been quiet, then perhaps
Black would have just gone away and YOU wouldn't have had to worry about
having to respond to his filth, is that it?  Like the billboard says,
"Ignore your teeth, and they'll go away.")
-- 
"When you believe in things that you don't understand, you'll suffer.
 Superstition ain't the way."		Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr