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: <877@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 20:36:50 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.877 Posted: Mon Apr 8 20:36:50 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 20:44:38 EST References: <273@unm-la.UUCP> <4493@umcp-cs.UUCP> <858@pyuxd.UUCP> <4599@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: STRONGARM COLLECTION AGENCY: We have no slogan Lines: 132 > [Quote has been moved to the bottom so as to allow me to get to the point > before you've had to suffer through re-reading 75 lines of Rich again.] I would guess that you modestly consider reading and re-reading *you* as sheer ecstasy... :-? > Well, Rich, you've finally worn out my patience. Not that you ever seemed > to have any. (Go ahead, self-righteously say "I have no patience with > bigots." I dare you.) Maybe it was a bad idea to cut that section out. > Since I had no intention of arguing for or aginst it, I excised it. Its > truth had no bearing on the argument. Funny how its meaning totally changed, crediting a completely different section to a completely different person, thus totally altering what was said. Since this is a tactic used in manipulative persuasive technique by many political groups of certain creeds, since you've used this technique in the past, and since you've supported the use of manipulative methods of persuasion in the past, I feel safe in saying that such techniques (including making bogus statistical claims like "Rosen submitted 60% of the articles in net.religion") have become your trademark. If you wish to take the time to malign me so that the spotlight will not be on you, please desist. It's getting annoying and has no place in this newsgroup. > What has really peeved me about the whole thing is the abuse you heaped upon > Jeff, without even having the civility to allow him to take back his remarks. > I was truly puzzled by his posting; my conversations with Jeff have made it > clear to me that he disagrees violently with the tenets espoused by Black. > The only explanation I have is that perhaps Jeff didn't see the articles, or > didn't read the whole thing (not unlikely at all), or any of a half dozen > other things. I am quite willing to give him (and Don Black, for that > matter) the benefit of the doubt. But Rich, without even asking Jeff to > clarify himself, flames all over him. That's funny, I wasn't even talking about Jeff, now, was I? If you're trying to make it seem like "he's not just 'attacking' me---look!", this is getting very juvenile. > At this point I have no doubts about Don Black. At the beginning, I did, for > reasons I've forgotten. Rich, however, decided to turn the whole thing into > an ideological purity test. I should have listened to Jeff, and refused the > test. As Byron Howes pointed out to me in a letter, this whole discussion > could have been put to better use in actually talking about the chridstian > tendencies to anti-semetism and a host of other evils. Rich, however, has > never been able to turn away from flaming at anything like that. That's funny. That's exactly what I was talking about with Wingate for months, and when the subject originally came up he accused me of attacking him then too. You're obviously still out to tar me at any cost to clear your own name. >>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. > Bully for them. The true point of this paragraph, however, is that Rich > agrees that it is O.K. for him to set himself up as ideological judge of the > net. Not only do I state very clearly in the paragraph above that there was no "test" and no "judgment", but I state that it is on the basis of comparing what one claims to believe which the way one acts that is the basis for any and all comments. It's not my job to judge you. You're the one who believes in an ultimate judge, not me. The fact that you contradict what you claim to be your beliefs with your very actions will, if there is such a judge, work against you at that final judgment. Which, I would think, would be reason for a supposedly reasoned human being like yourself to act on the beliefs, to speak up as Jody Patilla and Bill Jefferys and others have and to state unequivocally that, even though you may have been tarred in certain ways, you denounce such bigotry in the name of Christianity, rather than saying "But I'm an Episcopalian!" >>>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.") > Actually, Black himself has said that you drove him away, Rich. My points > are separate. You are wrong to flame someone without taking into account > that the net is not perfect communications, and you are wrong to set > yourself up as judge. Again, I did no such thing. If you're interested in what you would call "fair play" and not just getting back at me, why didn't you flame Bill Peter's article that preceded this one and which I reiterated? Because your goal seems to be "get back at Rich for his saying what he said that gave me no recourse but to snap back at him". This is childish. If you want, you win. I apologize for running roughshod over you. Your record still contradicts your claims. You said you were interested in speaking out on Christian tendencies toward anti-Semitism, especially in light of comments I made about your remarks on Jew-baiting. Yet you cowered and claimed I was attacking you when the topic came up. Whom are we both kidding, Charles? I have told you more than once that your very actions frighten me to death. Why? Because, in your own words, you're NOT a Nazi. Or a Falwellian. Or an Identity Christian. And yet 1) you still seem to hold many of the same attitudes regarding individual human freedom and individual groups, and 2) you see no reason to speak up in the face of those things that you're not except to say "But I'm an Episcopalian!" I'm glad you no longer have doubts about Black, I'm glad you came to certain realizations. If I had some small part in this, I'm glad. I wish I hadn't "driven him away", he's nice to have around to show such people for what they are. If you're so interested in talking about issues like Christian history of anti-Semitism and Christian apathy to dangers to non-Christians, then do so. The floor is yours. But this vindictive mudslinging? I've had enough. How about you? Black's driven away, but his kind are not gone. Shall we all crawl back into our shells until one of them comes along in the "real world" and not just on the net? You among others have shown how much prodding it takes for SOME people to respond when something like this happens. Some don't recognize it. No one who's been reading this newsgroup over the last two weeks has that excuse. Some would just rather ignore it despite what they know. There are lessons unlearned there. Oh well... -- Otology recapitulates phonology. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr