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 (Arthur Pewtey)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rich Rosen (beating dead horses)...
Message-ID: <1077@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 20:28:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1077
Posted: Wed Jun 12 20:28:52 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 02:38:36 EDT
References: <970@trwatf.UUCP>
Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association
Lines: 228

> 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..... [FRITH]

A quote?  The point of your whole argument is that WE (the rest of us)
shouldn't be raising such a stink about neo-Nazism on the net.  If that's
not a desire to see us be silent on the issue, what is?

>>> [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."

You can't have it both ways, my friend.  First you make the claim earlier
that the net is not the whole world but only a small subset (though I have
said that influencing only one person to recognize what Don Black represents
would make it worthwhile).  Then you complain about only "four" or "five"
people out of the small subset that is the net not recognizing what has
occurred.  A small number can be a large portion of a small subset.  One
example I can give offhand is Vince Marchionni, who debated with Black
philosophically, claiming to have a desire to reason with him about his
religious beliefs in a rational fashion, not at all recognizing him for what
he represented.  There was another person, a woman, who at first asked the
same questions you did, but after seeing the postings again, she admitted
that she had been unaware of what Black really was and responded to his
neo-Nazi propaganda openly.  And there were others, too.  Any number I'd
show you would be a "small number" that would be irrelevant to you who has
already come to a conclusion about the worthwhileness of all this, so I'm
not sure why I'm even bothering.  You're not interested in reasoned argument,
you're seemingly only interested in foisting you view that discussing
neo-Nazism is a bad thing.

> 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.

They should have waited for you to come along.  You do a much better job
of invoking irrelevant flaming for no apparent reason than I ever could.
Your "perhaps"es, as I indicated above, are not quite what really happened.

>>> 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.

You mean the way you accused Brower of giving a bad name to Jews with his
excessive flaming?  Despite the fact that Brower isn't Jewish?  As I said
before, it's apparent that you yourself hold the very prejudice you claim
that you're seeking to avoid, that of the Jew who speaks out against
anti-Semitism as an obnoxious loudmouth.  Why else would you have assumed
that Brower was Jewish?  The "litany" most certainly does apply.  In what
way does it not?

>>> 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.

Those that admire Hitler have organized into groups that ARE well-armed
and very organized.  When asked about this by someone else, who questioned
you as to whether or not you had ever heard of the Aryan Nations or other
such groups, you didn't answer?  DO you know about those groups?  If so,
how can you make the statements you've made?  If not, do some reading before
mouthing off again!

>> 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.

Somehow YOU have deemed yourself the arbiter of what defines "excess".  Others,
like Brower, as well as others, Jews and non-Jews, have spoken out at length
on this issue.  You would seem to be alone in deciding that this particular
level of dissection, of dissemination of information, is "excessive".  Given
that, why do you seek our willing silence on this issue?

> 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 don't care what YOU personally do.  The fact that you see speaking out
on neo-Nazism as "excessive" lets me know a little about what you are and
aren't willing to do, and what your position might be.  The speaking out
that has been done IS just a gradation.  It's apparent to me that you won't
speak out any further because you think it's "excessive" or "counterproductive"
to do so.  Good for you.  Let the rest of us who seek to disseminate some
information once in a while on the topic do so in peace, without your
complaints.
> Your determination to beat my original article to a pulp displays more
> your obsessive tendencies than it does my supposed ignorance of the
> situation.

Excuse me, but wasn't it YOUR original article that was attempting to beat
MY article (on what have we learned) to a bloody pulp?  Let's get this
into perspective now!!  As evidenced above, your ignorance on this issue
is quite apparently not "supposed" at all.

> 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."

Then why not stop screaming like an idiot and let other people speak on
the topic?  Your insistence that we all stop has been the only flow of
noise on the whole topic of late.  (*MY* obsessive behavior???)

>>>> [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.

Yet you've been insisting to the rest of us that we've been going too far.
That we are "giving Jews a bad image" (although you did say that to a non-Jew).
What you have been telling us is that our speaking out IS going too far,
that by your standards we should NOT be free to do as we 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.

It remains funny that only you have decided on this particular version of
"too far".  Fact is, no one has spoken to the issues directly since you
went on your tirade telling everyone how YOU thought we were all going too
far.  As I said before, the horse is alive and we should continue to beat it.
(Again, apologies to horse lovers for the crude analogy.)

> 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.

I think we've all shown remarkable flexibility of thought in relating to you.
You persist in telling other people how we should adhere to your definition
of "too far" in exposing bigotry in the guise of patriotism and religion,
and we have tried to reason with you.  This article has shown that it is
not possible.  Don't bother responding.  Please.  Those of us who wish to
speak will continue to do so.  You will probably continue to think that it
is "going too far".  Good for you.  Don't bother repeating yourself.  We
know how you feel.  Give us our freedom of speech.  Let us "dig our own
graves", as you might choose to put it.  Better us than you through your
silence.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr