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!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!trwatf!root From: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Reply to Rich Rosen (beating dead horses)... Message-ID: <1019@trwatf.UUCP> Date: Sat, 29-Jun-85 20:58:48 EDT Article-I.D.: trwatf.1019 Posted: Sat Jun 29 20:58:48 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Jul-85 00:23:21 EDT References: <970@trwatf.UUCP> <1077@pyuxd.UUCP> <1001@trwatf.UUCP> <1106@pyuxd.UUCP> <1008@trwatf.UUCP> <1125@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) Organization: TRW Advanced Technology Facility, Merrifield VA. Lines: 155 In article <1125@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>> 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. 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. 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. > 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.... Didn't look terribly Jewish. > 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. >> 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. >> 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? >> 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 claims are absurd. And they remain just that... selfish claims. >> 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. You DO come off as a belligerent asshole, Rich. 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. > 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. 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. See how you are twisting my ideas about in your own head to suit your own flaming needs Rich? You are distorting my words and your own thoughts along with them. I can only point out the outward signs of your affliction, but you're the one who'll have to go in there with a knife and do something about it. >> 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 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. Ignored because I do not control your freedoms. Control them youself. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Money for you from the Buddah"