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.religion
Subject: Re: Reply to Rich Rosen (beating dead horses)...
Message-ID: <1125@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 16:23:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1125
Posted: Mon Jun 24 16:23:05 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 07:32:11 EDT
References: <970@trwatf.UUCP> <1077@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@trwatf.UUCP> <1106@pyuxd.UUCP> <1008@trwatf.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 168

>>> 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.

What a vapid load of manure!  "Because OTHER people" will interpret...?  
Come off it!  It's very apparent that YOU yourself were one of those people.
Again, why did you say that Brower's "whining" would confirm their notions of
Jews, if not because you yourself believe him to be one?  Brower doesn't even
sound like a very Jewish name to me, so it certainly couldn't be that:  
the only reason you might believe that "others" would believe this is if
you believed it yourself.  

> 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.

What does "cleaning up our act" mean?  I mean, you deny repeatedly that you
think we should simply be silent about the issue, so what changes in our "act"
are you referring to?

>>> 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.

OK, asshole, do you remember what the unchanged subject line on all of
these articles was for many weeks?  "Remembering the Holocaust:  What
Have We Learned?"  Who made up that subject line?  *ME*!!!  Who wrote the
original article containg that subject line?  *ME*!!!  Self-centered?
Perhaps because the article written by this particular "self" is the "center"
of this discussion and all that followed.  You pompous oaf!!!  The above
paragraph makes it quite clear that you have no desire to argue, preferring
to resort to lies and fabrications of the shoddiest kind to make your non-
point.  Which reminds me:  what IS your point?  You've denied that it is
the point I have perceived it to be?  Is there a point?  If not, the best
way to say nothing is not to say anything.  (Watch him call THIS an attempt
to silence him!)

> 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.

I'm judging it on what you did say.  How can I stop "introducing" material
that has already been posted, that you are supposedly responding to?

>>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...

I think the excerpts I quote above show "Lord" Frith's attitude.  And I
agree that he is as calm and collect as HE can be...

>>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.

Deliberate fabrications (like "Rosen was responding to MY article!") are
not a form of primitive childish sophistry.  Sounds like a pretty absurd
claim to me.  As absurd as attempting to weasel out of your assuming Brower
was Jewish.

>>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."

Yeah, I bring up the subject of IC's and the Aryan Nations.  That's what
the article you responded to was all about, a response in which you referred
to me as a twit and a belligerent asshole, among other things (very "calm
and collected" of you).  Furthermore, I support my "accusations".  My "desire"
to show your ideas as false stems from the fact that 1) the evidence shows them
to be false and 2) your presenting them as true is an affront to those who
would stand up against bigotry.  You have repeatedly called our speaking out
about bigotry as excessive and counterproductive, but you have never described
what you consider a "proper" limit to such speaking out.  Given that anything
I have said on the subject you deem "excessive", I'd say you're just mouthing
off for the hell and really don't have anything to say on the subject except
the injection of a little noise and harrassment.

> 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.

"Belligerent asshole" was as "eloquent" as you got, my friend.  Again,
what do you almighty one consider a "proper" limit to such exposure that
you in your wisdom would deem acceptable and not "counterproductive".  If
you can't tell us, then you're left with nothing to say.  Which probably
won't stop you.

> Oh boy... I wonder how long we can keep THIS going?  ;-)

You've successfully said nothing for months now.  I'm sure you can
emit it as quickly as I can analyze the nothingness in it.  Probably faster.

>>>>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.

And it so often fails in discussions with you.  Which is why one is forced
to resort to such ridicule.  Notice that he blithely ignored the first
part about speaking openly.  Where he has little to say, he find something
else to talk about.

>>>Stick it Rich.  No one enjoys this kind of shit.  [NOTE THE CALMNESS AND
		COLLECTEDNESS HERE. :-?]
>>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.

You could have done that a long time ago by ceasing and desisting from
"this nonsense".
-- 
Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr