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: <1001@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 18:56:33 EDT Article-I.D.: trwatf.1001 Posted: Mon Jun 17 18:56:33 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 04:03:11 EDT References: <970@trwatf.UUCP> <1077@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 142 In article <1077@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >> 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? Well you're wrong. So much for your opinion. >> 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? He isn't the only one apparently. > 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? Why do you insist that I said Brower was Jewish when I didn't? This contradiction (that I apparently hold the same prejudices that I condemn) should tell you that you are basing your conclusions on false data. And guess where that false data is coming from, Rich. That's right. Inside your own little head. >> 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! I made no statments concerning the Aryan Nations. Again, Rich, 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. Your above repsonse shows that you are still determined to force your own pet diatribes on me. > 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? More ridiculous claims concerning statements I never made. >> 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. Then why are you flaming at me? My postings do not restrict your freedom in the slightest. If you really think they do, then you are indeed a sick man. > The fact that you see speaking out on neo-Nazism as "excessive" Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. > 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. Trying to silence my freedom of speech now Rich? Tsk tsk. >> 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? No it didn't. >> 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? Again... I do not hold the reigns on your freedom. Why do you insist that I hold your freedom of speech captive like some Moslem terrorist? Lately, you've been seething with nothing but neurotic imagry about my "little prejudices" and "attempts to silence freedom of speech." Rich, I think you need to sit down and take a long hard look at yourself. > 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. Nope. > 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. A perfect example of sophistry at its worst. Rule one when attempting to belittle someone: Phrase your accusations as if they come from a body of people. After all, who would oppose the will of the people? Then claim that the words of the accused are his own prosecutor. Finally wrap up the package by humoring the poor fool. Good for you little boy. Stick it Rich. No one enjoys this kind of shit. > Don't bother repeating yourself. If you don't want to hear it Rich then you can ignore it. > We know how you feel. Who elected you the representative of the people or were you self-appointed? -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"