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: Remembering the Holocaust: What have we learned?
Message-ID: <1119@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Jun-85 19:32:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1119
Posted: Sun Jun 23 19:32:42 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 03:47:39 EDT
References: <1019@phs.UUCP> <912@pyuxd.UUCP> <262@ihu1n.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 42

> The title of an article does not necessarily moderate it's content.

The subject matter of an article IS its content.  When you responded to
my article, you were responding to its content.  If YOU chose to change the
subject and not address points I had made from the beginning, then it is
you who is guilty of switching the issues around.  If you were complaining
about other things than those which I was talking about in my article, then
why the fuck were you addressing your complaints to me?  Bugger off, please.

> I never.. ever... EVER... claimed that you were a Jew.
> 
> Please GO BACK and READ the article CAREFULLY.  I claimed that other
> people on the net DO perceive Jews as being a boat-load of loud-mouthed
> whiners.  This is a said fact... but that's the way the world is.  I
> did not refer to you soley in this paragraph.  Note that I said "people
> like you and Rich Rosen."  Had I meant "Jews like you and Rich Rosen" I
> would have said so.

Suddenly he remembers.  It strikes me as odd.  If the subject was Ubizmatists,
and you said to me "Your loudmouthed whiningis giving Ubizmatists a bad
name", how crazy would I be to believe that you assumed I was an Ubizmatist?
Pretty damned sane, I'd say.  If you want to try in a Nixonian way to rephrase
what you said after the fact, go ahead.  I need a good laugh.

> Non-sequitur.  In this case I'll simply change the subject line instead
> of the content of the article.  You and Rich Rosen do not dictate the
> subject matter of articles via your choice of a subject line.  Nor
> can you moderate my freedom to choose whatever topic of conversation
> interests me simply because the topic was - long ago - about the
> Holocaust.

What we dictate in our own articles is the content.  If you are responding
to those articles, but referring to things other than the content, then it is
you who is shifting the focus, and thus you have no right to complain that
it is you who has been misconstrued.  If you make complaints and differing
opinions with other people's articles, and those opinions are not related
to the content of those articles but are related instead to some notions of
your own (though you claimed your complaints were about our articles), then
your whole basis of complaint is cracked.
-- 
Like a bourbon?  (HIC!)  Drunk for the very first time...
			Rich Rosen   ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr