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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!trwatf!root From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Remembering the Holocaust: What have we learned? Message-ID: <1000@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 17:59:19 EDT Article-I.D.: trwatf.1000 Posted: Mon Jun 17 17:59:19 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 05:39:12 EDT References: <1019@phs.UUCP> <912@pyuxd.UUCP> <262@ihu1n.UUCP> Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 93 In article <1073@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: > > Oh? Then why did you make the statement that Brower's speaking out on neo- > Nazis was giving a bad image to Jews as rabblerousers? See below for more > discussion of Frith's assumption that because Brower spoke out, he must have > been Jewish, and thus leant to others the impression of Jews as loudmouths (or > whatever term he used). I never said that Richard Brower was Jewish. Show us the quote that proves I did. > On the contrary, what has been done is to show that the basis Frith > has for judging what is excessive in fighting bigotry is tainted by his own > little prejudices. Nothing of the sort has been shown. Claims do not make reality. Why don't you substantiate your words with fact Rich? >> It's strange that you should agree with this statement Mr. Brower since >> you don't seem to recognize that Rich is applying the same sort of sophistry >> here that he condemns. First Rich tells us what seems to be true (actually >> a statement of his own views) and then makes a cast-in-concrete conclusion, >> based on his original false premises. He's just beating to death his own >> straw men. > > Which straw man is this? The fact that you assumed that Brower, because he > engaged in "loudmouthed whining", must have been Jewish (an assumption you > made quite clearly when you told him he was giving a bad impression of Jews > to others), bespeaks some of your own innate prejudices. Fact? Your flagrent disregard for reality bespeaks your inability to speak the truth or to present a view without bias or distortion of the facts, Rich. These "little prejudices" "assumptions" and "innate prejudices" all exist in your own imagination. When will you learn to stop embellishing other people's remarks with YOUR OWN biases? How many times do we have to listen to you deride others with this kind of shallow sophistry? I guess as long as there's a network. Got a girl Rich? Does she enjoy doing this too? I'm sure you make a lovely couple. >> [Lord Frith] >> Do NOT claim to be replying to my articles or my thoughts when in fact >> you are merely interesting in furthering your own views of the real >> world. If you want to discuss the real-world, start a new discussion or >> change the current thrust of this one, but DO NOT claim that I am >> myopic because my original article does not address a domain it was >> never intending to address. > > You feel that "silence" would benefit "the entire netnews community". No... I feel that RESPONSIBILITY would benefit the usenet community. That's a far cry from demanding silence. Why do you insist on forcing your selfish opinions into the framework of other's words, Rich? This is called sophistry and it's the worst kind of lie that there is. > that propaganda of the neo-Nazi sort is having on this country, if you'd > rather see silence than enlightenment on the topic, quite frankly I have to > wonder why. Quite frankly I wonder why you haven't recognized my point. Hasn't it occured to you that you're constantly beating your head against a brick wall by repeating the same litany to me over and over and over and over again. Instead of condemning me you should listen and try to understand. But no... you'll never learn. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Give a man a horse... and he thinks he's enormous"