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,net.religion,net.religion.jewish
Subject: (Hopefully) Final Remarks about Wingate
Message-ID: <305@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Nov-84 09:26:55 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.305
Posted: Fri Nov 30 09:26:55 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Dec-84 20:26:36 EST
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 74

[WARNING:  This may start out loudly but it gets quieter as time goes on]

> Since the form of Rich's announcement implies that my net.news posting
> shows me to be hopelessly anti-semetic (as do the newsgroups he selected),
> I am going to explain why I made such a statement, so that those who are not
> familiar with Rich Rosen will not be led to the wrong conclusion. [WINGATE]
  ------------------------
What is it, Mr. Wingate, that you feel that some people might be "unfamiliar"
with about me?  Speak up, please, sir.  Such sweeping innuendo is best
clarified for all to read.  I think people have been led to the right
conclusion simply by being made aware of your posting and of the fact that
you consider insulting members of religious groups other than your own to
be a reasonable topic for humorous discourse.  

> That group [net.religion.jewish] came to mind as
> the natural result of two months of argument with Yirmiyahu and Rich (who
> has an apparently jewish surname, I notice); I could just as well have
> chosen to suggest pro-rape articles in net.women.

First, prior to your remarks I had neither read nor contributed to
net.religion.jewish for many months, so you're clearly making up excuses as
an afterthought.  Second, that's an equally interesting alternate choice you've
made there.  Perhaps the notion of sending something derisive about Apples to
net.micro.apple, etc., would be less likely to cross your mind than sending
something derogatory about human beings.  As Bill Peter said, the fact that
you find such subjects to be potential fodder for jokes is offensive and
sickening.  Despite Byron "contributing to the betterment of mankind" Howes'
remarks that point out that we all have scars of ingrained prejudice etched
within us, just accepting such prejudice when it evinces itself is not the
answer.  Perhaps shedding light on such ingrained notions will shed light on
why other related notions are held as well.

> Those who have gone to the trouble to follow the argument
> between Rich and I over the last month will be aware that Rich would rather
> put his beliefs concerning my thoughts into my mouth, rather than argue
> against what I have actually said.

Why not show the readership some examples of this?  Perhaps because there 
aren't any.  (Taking lessons from Arndt?)  I have argued repeatedly against
points you have made, and on many occasions have received no counterargument
to my own points.  I'm offended that Wingate makes such an attempt to snow
news readers with non-information.  But not surprised.  Fact is, Wingate and I
are both currently participating in two discussions in this newsgroup that are
becoming very interesting (at least to me, more so than most).  I'm referring
to the good vs. evil discussion (which is shaping up to be one of the calmer
and more rational discussions thus far), and the "what is the supernatural"
discussion.  I'm not hateful of Wingate, I don't seek to malign him.  I only
wished to point out elements in his (apparent) mindset that (apparently) others
have also noticed, and how they are reflected in some of his positions.

>  Judging from what I have read, Rich is either utterly ignorant
> of my beliefs, or is engaging in a campaign of distortion which I for one
> find rather unethical.  I would prefer to believe the former; I can be
> convinced of the latter.

I'm sure.  Through wishful thinking and preconception, one can be easily
"convinced" of anything.  Perhaps that is what I am guilty of here.  The
point was not to tar Wingate with the epithet "anti-Semite" merely because
he has a pet halibut. :-)  The point was to show that the mindset of "my
religion has the truth and yours doesn't" can (and does) often include varying
degrees of intolerance, not necessarily malicious hatred, but possibly
ingrained notions that people have little control over.  I apologize if
Mr. Wingate has been mislabelled.  He is one of the more lucid (though also
intransigent) contributors.  But I think his posting speaks for itself
in that his mindset does contain such notions as I've described.

Finally, re: Mr. rabbit!jj (now apparently alice!jj) -- though you may have
seen no merit in my reposting, others certainly have and have expressed that.
I think their concern outweighs yours.  Mentioning Rosen-baiting or
Jew-baiting (or teddy-bear-baiting) is quite different from seeing the subject
as being worthy of (attempts at) humor.
-- 
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
					Rich Rosen    pyuxd!rlr