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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!trwatf!root From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Reply to Rich Rosen (beating dead horses)... Message-ID: <1008@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 17:24:05 EDT Article-I.D.: trwatf.1008 Posted: Thu Jun 20 17:24:05 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 04:40:22 EDT References: <970@trwatf.UUCP> <1077@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@trwatf.UUCP> <1106@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 133 In article <1106@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >> 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. [Frith] > > 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.... > >> 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? Because other people interpret such attitudes as being Jewish you fool! If I thought he was Jewish then why didn't I refer to the both of you as Jews? Obviously because I didn't make such an assumption. Both of you are arguing in defense of Jews, but with little concern for the negative effect your attitudes (especially yours Rich) might be doing them. Both of you are so absolutley convinced that I want to silence the voice of Jews on this net that you've blinded yourselves to ANY interpretation other than that of Frith as the anti-semetic. To reiterate my earlier statement, you had better look to cleaning up your own act before you challenge the likes of Don Black. >> 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. Now there's the typical self-centered Rich Rosen point of view. No Rich... YOU responded to my original article which claimed that you have an alternative to flaming excessivly against Don Black. You remember that one don't you? As such, YOU should respond to what I said, instead of condemning me for not covering the topics you have decreed that I should. Stop introducing material with the expectation that I am liable for responding to it. My original article put forth one idea... one suggestion. If you don't like it then you're free to comment on it, but don't judge what I said according to what you think I *should* have said. > [Rich Rosen] > 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? I'm calm and collected as can be Rich... unlike your attitude at times... > [Rich Rosen] > If you don't like it, you can shove it up your ass. (Is that unawesome and > unrighteous enough for you. You seem intent on making asinine comments on > every word I have to say, don't you?) > [Rich Rosen] > 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. Rich, I've expressed myself carefully and clearly. At no time have I stooped to the lows of sophistry that you have. Nor have I made claims as absurd as yours e.g. "Frith desires to see us silent because he doesn't like what he hears." No Rich. You cannot make the truth simply because you desire something to be so. Now please... apply some introspection and grow up yourself. >> 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? Your postings express a DESIRE to show my ideas as false. "We" have failed to prove any of my ideas as false, although you have set up several straw men in a vain attempt to knock down my ideas. Neither do I repeat my argument endlessly. On the contrary, it is YOU who continually brings up the subject of IC's, "the Aryan Nations" and accusations concerning my supposed "prejudices." No matter how eloquently I state my case, you seem to find a way to twist it into some sort of anti-semetic negativism. I did not say I disliked hearing someone defend their position. If you had looked at my articles carefully you would see that I agreed with you when you stated that exposing Don Black's ideas for what they are was a worthy occupation. >>> 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. Oh boy... I wonder how long we can keep THIS going? ;-) >>> 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. Ah yes... when reason fails, Rich Rosen resorts to ridicule. >> 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. Not bloody likely. But I'm glad to see you are finally ready to stop this nonsense. Maybe now I can get some work done around here. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "I eat X-men for BREAKFAST!"