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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!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: <1154@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 4-Jul-85 02:10:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1154
Posted: Thu Jul  4 02:10:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 13:30:22 EDT
References: <970@trwatf.UUCP> <1077@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@trwatf.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 177

> If I were one of those people myself, Rich, then why did I go out of my
> way to expose this particular prejudice in people?  How could I
> possibly succumb to this prejudice and condemn it all in the same
> sentence?  This obvious contradiction should have been a red flag to
> you, Rich, but instead you insisted on interpreting my statements in
> the light that best suited you.  Go back and read the excerpt again.
> There is no reference to you or Brower as being Jewish.

As I read this, I hear a man so desperate to "clear his name" that he will
twist and shout till he's blue in the face.  You keep doing that if you like.
It's almost fun to watch you try it.  But I wasn't alone.  Brower noticed
it himself.  David Harwood, one of the few real Christians I've come across on
this net, noticed it, too, as did others.

> The truth of the matter is that I did not assume you or Brower were
> Jewish.  You can rant and rave and arrogantly insist that I am
> prejudiced against you all you like but the truth still remains.  If
> you don't like this, then call me a liar but you still have no proof
> that I am and the truth remains.

Proof?  Like having read your mind?  Well, they say actions speak louder
than words.  On the net, though, one's actions ARE one's words, and your
words speak for themselves.  From the beginning your purpose was to complain
that the level of criticism about neo-Nazism was too much for your taste.
When you complained that Brower and me "whining" about it would give a bad
image to Jews, how could you make that claim unless you yourself believed
we were both Jewish.  "Because OTHER people would mistake Brower as Jewish?"
Who the f**k do you think you're kidding?  After the fact excuse making of
the shoddiest kind.  Who on earth would you expect to believe such a story?
This joke has gone far enough.

>>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:  

> Just because YOU don't think it sounds Jewish, doesn't mean it doesn't
> sound Jewish to someone else.  Actually Brower is a very Germanic sounding
> name to me.  Probably because I once worked with one of the old-timers in
> the space industry named Brower.  This guy had a very thick German accent
> and was very aryan looking too with wire-rimmed glasses....

So now he changing his tune, claiming that his view is that it did sound
Jewish.  I don't know what point you're trying to make.  It sounds like you're
trying to cover your ass with as much protective shields as possible, even
though you've only got two buttocks.

>>the only reason you might believe that "others" would believe this is if
>>you believed it yourself.  

> No... I believe that "others" are prejudiced because they have TOLD me they
> recognize this particular trait and interpret it as a Jewish one.  And guess
> what Rich... SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE JEWISH.

Oh, please!  Your "best friends"?  Another buttock-coverer that's made of
tissue-paper.

>>>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?

> It's called "introspection"... an act I doubt you're capable of.

This is the man who claims to be "calm and collected" about this whole affair.

>>>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?

> And who originated the initial topic of conversation?  Me.  It concerned
> ignoring the "hate baiters"... remember that one?

Let me get this straight.  I wrote the first article, but you originated the
topic?  I don't recall consulting you before writing.  And I thought you said
your point had nothing to do with *ignoring* hate baiters.  In fact, I
remember you asserting it repeatedly.  Whom are we kidding, my friend?

>>>Rich, I've expressed myself carefully and clearly.  At no time have I
>>>stooped to the lows of sophistry that you have.  [E.G., "INTROSPECTION,
>>>SOMETHING YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT CAPABLE OF", AN EXAMPLE OF NON-STOOPING]
>>>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 claims are absurd.  And they remain just that... selfish claims.

Oh.  "Selfish" claims?  As opposed to your "selfless", "altruistic" claims?
What does this mean?  And what do you mean by sophistry if not the above crap?

>>>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).

> More lies and distortions.  I have a copy of the original article and nowhere
> does it refer to you as a belligerent asshole.  That comment came in a later
> article and was a very calm statement.

Oh, yes, indeed.  Referring to people as "belligerent asshole" in a calm
manner is apparently your trademark.  (?)

> As for the my original article, it made no attempt to reply
> to the content of your article.  So what?  I don't need you as a prime
> mover.

Let me get THIS straight, now.  You make remarks about my article, ignoring
the issues raised within it; I respond to you claiming that your point is
invalid (as others agreed) and that your statements do not accurately reflect
what I was talking about, and now YOU have the right to claim that you aren't
obliged to be accurate in your remarks about my article when making remarks
about my article?  What kind of bullshit is this?  Pretty piss poor excuses
for bullshit I'd say.  Now it's your turn to go away and grow up, Frith.
Despite your self-proclaimed "lord" status, you've apparently got a lot to
learn about how to conduct a discussion with another person.  If you want
to talk about my articles, expect to be required to reflect them accurately
or give it up.  Please.

> Again more distortions on your part Rich.  This is just the sort of
> typical "Rich Rosen pin-the-meter" attitude that I object to.  I DID
> NOT say speaking out against bigotry is excessive and counterproductive.
> I said excessive and irresponsible flaming, no matter what it's
> proposed intent, can be counterproductive.  There's a big difference.

When repeatedly asked what is called "excessive and irresponsible", you
just refer to my postings and say "there".  Why are they "excessive and
irresponsible"?  You never bother to say, as if the lord's opinion was
gospel.  And I doubt that you ever will.  Since at bottom you have offered
nothing of substance throughout.

>>>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.

> Don't look to me to regulate your freedoms for you.

Ah, so here he admits he has nothing to say, no suggestions as to what may
be deemed non-counterproductive, non-excessive, non-irresponsible.  Thus
we now all know (as I have suspected all along) that he has nothing to say.
Thank you.  And goodbye.  Don't call me, and I won't call you.
-- 
Like a vermin (HEY!), shot for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr