Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!jj
From: jj@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Wingate's self-contradiction
Message-ID: <3528@alice.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 10:49:24 EST
Article-I.D.: alice.3528
Posted: Fri Apr  5 10:49:24 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 03:03:13 EST
Organization: New Jersey State Farm for the Terminally Bewildered
Lines: 73

<From allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
<
<> 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.

"<" is Wingate
"<>" is rlr.

First, I find it utterly preposterous that Wingate is complaining about
"Misstatements, over generalizations ... course for either", when it's
Charlie Wingate who I've seen raise the "straw men" in the silence/outcry
smear campaign (I was tempted to call it a debate, but I respect the
language too much for that).    Lest we forget, it was Charlie
Wingate who raised the spectre of lots of 'evil things', and then
inverted rlr's argument to show that Wingate claimed rlr supported
the Russians, genocide, etc.  Wingate ignored several things in this
wanton disgregard for truth and accuracy, the first being that if
he believed that rlr was indeed guilty, then by his own extension,
HE was guilty of supporting Don Black.  (Of course, he said taht
this was not so, and that rlr's argument that HE extended was invalid)

The second, and telling point, was that while BLACK espoused hate and
smear tactics, genocide, rascism, and lots of other things, he (Wingate)
was only MENTIONING them (He even made it clear that he didn't approve).
This, of course, represents a fundamental difference between his actions
and Black's, and shows the falicy of his reasoning, BUT

My first reply to Wingate was "but, nobody is espousing those things
that you list", to which he replied "but I just did", saying, I guess,
that he WOULD espouse them just to make false points against rlr. 
<A shame, when there are lots of valid complaints one COULD make, to 
resort to deliberate falicy.>

This same individual, Mr. Wingate, then refers to his opponents'
use of "Misstatements, overgeneralizations..." etc, etc.  

To this I reply,
	YOUR ARGUMENTS CONTRADICT THEMSELVES, SIR.  YOUR OWN
BEHAVIOR IS THAT ABOUT WHICH YOU COMPLAIN.

I ask you to seriously consider your own second comment, regarding
possession, and your responses to rlr and others.  The quote about
"The closer you get to the identity of ... the worse they vilify you"
<from memory> is quite revealing, if you believe the source.



-----------------------
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

(Note:  This is Wingate's dogma, not mine.)
-- 
TEDDY BEARS NEED SECURITY BLANKETS ONCE IN A WHILE!

"... John?  Who'd of thought it! ..."
(allegra,harpo,ulysses)!alice!jj