Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site trwatf.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!trwatf!root From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Reply to Rich Rosen (beating dead horses)... Message-ID: <970@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 14:37:48 EDT Article-I.D.: trwatf.970 Posted: Fri Jun 7 14:37:48 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 02:20:51 EDT Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 186 >> This is what Rich implied by saying Don Black wants to "take over." > > Nice of you to make bizarre, misquoted, out of context statements like > this. Why not insert a quote documenting my saying this? I'll tell > you why not: because I didn't say it. Why not insert a quote documenting my attempt to silence freedom of speech on the net? I'll tell you why not: because I didn't say it. What's good for the goose is good for the gander..... > [Rich Rosen] > In my opinion, your opinions are not among that few, and I think I've offered > my reasons in support of that. In response, you talk of how in your opinion > we should all shut up because you don't like what you hear, > [Rich Rosen] > And for as long as people ARE free to do so, YOU can be ignored in your > desire to see us all be silent. > [Rich Rosen] > I think I'm "proving" to you what you already choose to believe. You don't > like people speaking out about those who would foist tyranny upon us. Well, > good for you. Rich, if I REALLY wanted to supress your freedom of speech, and promote the ideology of Don Black, then tell me.... why didn't I speak up when you and Don Black where posting your original articles..... hmmmmmmmm???? >> [Lord Frith] >> Recall that the original discussion was confined to Don Black's >> postings. Sure there is a threat out there... but it's not on the net, >> unless you wish to consider the effect Black will have on the more >> gullible net-nerds. It strikes me that there are fewer of those than >> Rich says there are. > [Rich Rosen] > I incrementing the count by 1 after reading your articles. > [Rich Rosen from a previous article] > Fact was, a large number of people didn't recognize his "old ways" stuff > for what it was and is. Some still don't. Some could care less. Why don't you substantiate your claim, Rich. Where are these large numbers of people and can you name them? What is a large number in your eyes Rich? Four? Five? If you're truly concerned with the effect Don Black's and your own postings have then I suggest that you gather some realistic evidence before jumping to such conclusions. How many of these people did you talk to personally and how many of them actually said, "Gee... I didn't recognize this for what it was." Perhaps they didn't care. Perhaps they decided to respond to such postings in a way that you interpreted as ignorance. Perhaps they were willing to leave the flaming to you since that seems to be what you're good at. >> Exactly. If EVERYONE hit the 'n' key then he WOULD disappear, along >> with his neo.net.nonsense. That's all I was saying. Of course, there >> will always be a gullible few who read, and believe, the philosophy of >> Don Black. But acting like flaming zealots will only confirm their >> misguided opinions. > > Like they 'n'ed Hitler. It is NEVER worth just blithely ignoring hatred. > It is always worthwhile to show it for what it is, for hatred will engage > in deception of the basest and most manipulative kind to sway its audience. > And we've seen how easily that tactic works on the uninformed. Again, you're not being clever Rich. I wish you wouldn't parrot the same worn-out litany when it clearly doesn't apply. "Like they xxxxxx Hitler" indeed! I NEVER said that one should "blithely ignore hatred" I suggested that you consider an alternative to the negative impact you might well be generating with excessive flaming. >> Also, my primary CONCERN is not the net. My primary concern is the >> effect these postings have on the net community. The domain of >> discussion with Rich Rosen was "the net"... but Rich seems determined >> to hammer his point home by artificially expanding the topic of >> conversation. > > Give references of what you are talking about. Artificially? Expanding? Artificially. As in discrediting what I say by introducing topics I did not cover. Don Black may admire Hitler, but that doesn't mean he's rolling into town astride a Panzer IV tomorrow. If you want to broaden the sense of the discussion, at least don't try to blame me for ignorance of things that I am obviously not discussing. > The sphere of influence of the net is its readership, and perhaps associates > of its readership, and if the articles dissecting what Black is all about > make a point driven home and understood by ONE person, it is more than > worthwhile. I've already covered this. I made it quite clear that you SHOULD dissect his articles... but not to the point that it becomes counterproductive to you and to the network community. You know what happens when you dissect something too much? You have a purre'd mess. You certainly have justification to defend your position, I never denied this and I don't know why you continue to assert that I did. What I object to is your taking that justification and making it the excuse to indulge in any arbitrary excess. It's this exagerated viewpoint that prevents you from appraising my point. There's no median ground for you: only black and white. Either I must flame Don Black for each and every transgretion or I am determined to silence the voices defending freedom. One or the other. It didn't occur to you that there might be gradations to these two extremes. >> I never denied that there is "a threat" but no one seems to want to >> think about exactly where that threat is coming from. Beating Don >> Black's postings senseless will not change that threat. > > What is your complaint? As I mentioned above, the counterpostings are > certainly not doing harm, and are probably doing some good in informing > some. Is it just that you don't like to see them and seek to squelch > those who would say those things? Or what? Agreed... counterpostings ARE doing good... certainly for the benefit of those reading them. I do it all the time so why would I object to it? But does that mean that this is the ONLY position one can take? Does the world come to an end if you haven't returned three articles for Don Black's every one? Your determination to beat my original article to a pulp displays more your obsessive tendencies than it does my supposed ignorance of the situation. And don't be so naive' as to think that the more you post, the better. You may wish the counterpostings to always be productive, but such is not always the case. Didn't I make myself clear when I indicated the negative effect your obssessive behavior can have? People will look at all of these flames and conclude "what a bunch of screaming idiots." Don't assume that your electronic courtroom is really having the positive effect that you would like it to. >>> [Eliyahu Teitz] >>> Look at the people going around preaching hatred. Don't look at words >>> and dots on your screen. What Rich and the rest of us are attacking is >>> not the articles on the net, it is the philosophy behind these >>> articles. What we are trying to do is show others the danger of letting >>> people like Black talk out, without attacking their premeses. To ignore >>> them now when they are weak will only cause problems later when they >>> are strong. >> I have no problem with this. Attack their premeses. Expose the >> danger. Just understand that YOU TOO can go too far by embarking on a >> righteous crusade to purge the net of anti-semetic philosophies. You >> can only beat a dead horse so many times before the stink makes you >> realize that that's a dead horse lying there. > > Let's hear YOUR definition of "too far". I think it's at variance with that > of others. I think it falls short of pointing out what manipulative trash > in the guise of patriotism or moralism or religion is really saying, for > whatever reasons you have for that. My definition of "too far" applies to me. You are free to do as you wish. >> Each person must take responsibility for his or her ideas in such a public >> forum. This is a good time to start. > > Imagine that. I thought we were making Black and his kind accountable for his > ideas in this public forum. But that's what you're complaining about. > I don't understand... You don't understand, yet you continue to ridicule me. You claim I wish to "blithely ignore all hatred" and "silence those on the net because I don't like what I hear" and yet you ignore the following... >> [Lord Frith] >> I have no problem with this. Attack their premeses. Expose the >> danger. Just understand that YOU TOO can go too far by embarking on a >> righteous crusade to purge the net of anti-semetic philosophies. You >> can only beat a dead horse so many times before the stink makes you >> realize that that's a dead horse lying there. Are you so paranoid that you can only interrpret my suggestion of tolerance as an unconditional sanction of anti-semetism on the net (and off the net as well)? Show some flexibility of thought before condemning me. You're not thinking like a human being, you're reacting... like an animal. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO Rambo: First Blood part III The Quest for Jane Fonda