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 (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Wingate's sense of humor Message-ID: <287@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Nov-84 09:47:09 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.287 Posted: Wed Nov 28 09:47:09 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 29-Nov-84 05:21:14 EST References: <16436@lanl.ARPA> <45@mit-athena.ARPA> <1357@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 41 > If Mr. Martillo intends to insult me, I do wish he'd try harder. Insipid? > Surely he can do better than that. Insipid implies boring and without > flavor. Why then all the flames? I'd really like to see some new variations > on "jew-hater". [WINGATE] Boy, more intermediate discussion I've missed. Given Martillo's penchant for insulting ANYTHING that crosses his path (the wrong way), I'd say Wingate got just what he deserved, whatever Martillo said. Frankly, if Wingate perhaps associated with Jews and other people different from him on a regular basis, letting them know his true attitudes, I'm sure he'd hear all the variations he'd like, if he hasn't heard them already. > As I understand it, my great crime was to even so much as use the phrase > "jew-baiting" in an article. For crying out loud, I don't even know what > it is! All I know is that it is a form of behavior that gets everyone in > net.religion.jewish REALLY upset-- and that was the whole point: not that > I thought that such articles should be posted, but that posting of such > articles would guarantee lots of responses from everywhere. "But, I didn't even know what the word meant, Mommy! Oh, yeah, obviously I knew it was derogatory, but I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings, even though I admitted that use of the word does just that." Fertilizer. > Frankly I find Rich Rosen's > defense of his former religion rather hypocritical, considering his > attitude towards christianity. Rich apparently believes that nobody makes > stupid mistakes (and I admit that the comment was stupid, several times > over), and would rather interpret everything as an act of malice. If you find defending maligned groups of people and defending the rights of society against those who would claim their morality as the way to run other people's lives to be irreconcilable and hypocritical, well, that's your problem, Charlie. I received quite a few responses from people curious about the posting (prompting my reprinting the entire article), many of whom told me that you had shown significant anit-Semitism in the past. Call this an ad hominem attack if you will, but I think it reflects on the hidden agenda in your own postings about the nature of religion and morality, and shows how seriously your "objective" comments on the above topics should be taken. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr