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: <1106@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 22:13:28 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1106 Posted: Tue Jun 18 22:13:28 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 07:22:25 EDT References: <970@trwatf.UUCP> <1077@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@trwatf.UUCP> Organization: The Chartered Accountants Who Want to Be Lion Tamers Association Lines: 124 >>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? [ROSEN] > 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. [ROSEN] No, Frith, from inside you own little article. Every time either Brower and I have mentioned it you've tacitly ignored it, but here's the excerpt from your article 942@trwatf.UUCP in which you respond to Brower. He, too, later had to point out your erroneous assumption here. > It's quite obvious what I'm talking about. Just read the segment of my > article above, that you have thoughtfully included and you'll find > out. We're talking about Don Black's threat to the net. Through his > postings, I say little to no threat. I also contend that beating his > articles to death in an EXCESSIVE manner will do little to no good. > Further, I contend that your attitude, as well as Rich Rosen's, will > only confirm "their" notions of the Jew as an obsessive, loud-mouthed > whiner. You're not helping to clear up that stereotype much by > insisting that I confine my discussion to YOUR domain. ["LORD" FRITH] Why else would you say that BROWER'S attitude would "confirm" other people's notions about Jews unless you yourself assumed him to be Jewish? False data, my ass. >>>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. You were responding to MY articles. MY articles referred to the threat of groups like the Aryan Nations. Thus, since you were making statements about my articles, those statements were made in reference to my own references to those groups. > Your above repsonse shows that you are still determined to force your > own pet diatribes on me. Your above response shows that you're just a very lame but determined arguer without a leg to stand on. Why don't you sit down and cool off? This is no longer an argument, this is a joke. You accuse my facts of being false data, you claim your statements were not made in relation to the groups I mentioned in my own articles and yet you claim they were in response to my articles which did mention them. Grow up, please. > 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. Your postings express a DESIRE to see the postings on the issue stop. We have all shown that that approach is not a valid one when dealing with such things. Yet you cling to your argument and repeat it endlessly. For what purpose? > > The fact that you see speaking out on neo-Nazism as "excessive" > > Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. Right right right right right right right right right right. If not, what the fuck are you writing these articles telling us all that you don't like hearing that type of speaking out? To hear the sound of your own voice? Get a tape recorder and a set of headphones. >> 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. No, just asking you to respect the opinions of so many others and allow us to speak openly without complaints from you. Respect for other people is apparently to much to ask from you. >>>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. That's it. End of reply. This guy is obviously lying through his teeth to put forth this crap at any cost. That original article referred to attempts to speak out and inform as catering to "childish imagination". During that reply to that article, I spent a lot of time talking about groups like the Aryan Nations, thus it can be assumed that further responses from Frith were at least in part responses to that. Also, he did call me a flaming belligerent idiot, which I guess shows very clearly how he was NOT beating my article to a bloody pulp. Stuff it in you ear, Frith. As I said, this isn't an argument, this is a joke. And a very bad and ill-formed one on your part. >> And don't be so naive' as to think that the more you post, the better. > 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. Except you. You apparently like both giving and receiving it. But I'll cater to your base little masochistic tastes no longer, my friend. You'll have to go back to abusing yourself now. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr