From: vancleef@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship,alt.discrimination,alt.activism
Subject: <None>
Date: 16 Apr 92 06:55:16 GMT
Distribution: world,local

In article <1992Apr16.010319.1368@highland.oz.au>, andrew@highland.oz.au (Andrew Morton) writes:
> I have been following the b-cpu wars for a few weeks with
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^-------- This makes you
							a newbie, it's been
							going on for a *long,
							long, long time*.
		At first it was, bizarre, now it is simply out of
		control. See my FAQ suggestion...

> a mixture of amusement and bemusement.  Like (I assume) many
> people, I am very curious about this Winston character.
> Is he a jackbooted skinhead?  Is he a dispassionate
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Most likely...
> historical skeptic?   Unlike his detractors, I am
> not prepared to place him anywhere on that spectrum
> based on what I have seen.
> 
> Although my suspicions place him as a clever bigot, my
> jury's out.

Bigot, yes. Clever, NOT!

> 
> One thing which I do find very tiresome is the amount
> of mindless abuse directed at the b-cpu'ers.  
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You are new here, I would prefer to call it tired reflex responses to
megabytes of the same old boring crap. I suppose you weren't around
to enjoy ARF, where is that bARF these days?

These B-CPU Nazis almost make ARF a pleasant retreat... (no flames please ;)


> I wish
> people would either ignore their output or respond
> sensibly to it (many have).

I see you have bit the line too. You must unsubscribe this and every
newsgroup ASAP if you want to save yourself from it! I like my
FAQ & Ignorance idea...

> 
> Anyway, in James Lippard's summary of Wilcox's characterisation
> of political extremists I was struck by the correlation between
> this list and Ralph and his detractors.
> 
> I'll probably get in trouble for this, but I simply observe
> the following scorecard:
> 
> lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) writes:
> : 
> : Laird Wilcox is not an alias of Ralph Winston (though, for all I
> : know, the reverse could be true--but I doubt it).  He is a researcher
> : who *is* the founder of the Wilcox Collection on Contemporary Political
> : Movements in the Spencer Library of the University of Kansas.  He has
> : compiled several guidebooks to extremist groups:  _Guide to the American
> : Right_, _Guide to the American Left_, and _Guide to the American Occult_.
> : He has authored a very good article titled "What is Political Extremism?"
> : which appeared in _Free Inquiry_ magazine, I believe, in which he
> : characterized the behavioral traits of extremist groups as:
> : 
> :    1. Character assassination
> 
> Ralph:      Never

Never, yeah right, "ZIONIST THOUGHT POLICE" isn't character assasination.

> Anti-Ralph: Frequent (Assigning political status where none was given,
>                       accusations of posting under a pseudonym, etc)
> 

Have you ever heard of a clown called Bradley Smith? DO you know who he
is and what he did?

> :    2. Name calling and labeling
> 
> Ralph:      Minimal

This man is a blatent Anti-semite...

> Anti-Ralph: Shitbrain, dickhead, nazi trash, etc, etc
> 

All of the above descriptions are accurate.

> :    3. Irresponsible sweeping generalizations
> 
> Not much on either side.
> 
> :    4. Inadequate proof for assertions
> 
> Well, proof of assertions is the very substance of this debate.
> 
> :    5. Advocacy of double standards
> 
> hmm.
> 
> :    6. Tendency to view their opponents and critics as essentially evil
> 
> Ralph:       I don't think so
> Anti-Ralph:  Assuredly
>

Oh please!

> :    7. Manichean worldview
> 
> Where's my dictionary?
> 
> :    8. Advocacy of some degee of censorship or repression of their
> :       opponents and/or critics
> 
> Ralph:      No
> Anti-Ralph: Enormously
> 
> :    9. Tend to identify themselves in terms of who their enemies are:
> :       whom they hate and who hates them
> 
> Not much of this
> 
> :    10. Tendency toward argument by intimidation
> 
> Ralph:      Never
> Anti-Ralph: Frequent (censorship, removal of connection, etc)
> 
> :    11. Use of slogans, buzzwords, and thought-stopping cliches
> 
> Ralph:      Don't think so
> Anti-Ralph: Nazi trash, Anti-Semite, Racist, etc, etc
> 
> :    12. Assumption of moral or other superiority over others
> 
> Not really relevant
> 
> :    13. Doomsday thinking
> 
> Ditto
> 
> :    14. Belief that it's okay to do bad things in the service of a "good"
> :        cause
> 
> Not unless you include censorship.
> 
> :    15. Emphasis on emotional responses and, correspondingly, less
> :        importance attached to reasoning and logical analysis
> 
> Ralph:      Not guilty
> Anti-Ralph: Guilty: name calling, mainly.
> 
> :    16. Hypersensitivity and vigilance
> 
> Ralph:      Nope
> Anti-Ralph: Nope: you don't need to be hyper-sensitive to be offended by Ralph.
> 
> :    17. Use of supernatural rationale for beliefs and actions
> 
> Nope
> 
> :    18. Problems tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty
> 
> Nope
> 
> :    19. Inclination toward "groupthink"
> 
> Well, Ralph's argument is that this is so.
> 
> :    20. Tendency to personalize hostility
> 
> Ralph:      Nope
> Anti-Ralph: Pretty clear-cut.
> 
> :    21. Extremists often feel that the system is no good unless they win
> 
> Ralph:      Guilty!!! Blames PC thinking, media bias, etc for unpopularity
>                of his ideas.
> Anti-Ralph: Innocent!   (They've won)
> 
> -------
> 
> Conclusion: It's about time Ralph's detractors calmed down a bit.
> 

Damn! Ralph MUST BE A NICE GUY THEN! SHIT, AND I THOUGHT HE WAS A NAZI!

> Caveat: It's easy for Ralph to win this one, because most of his postings
>         consist of one-way transcriptions of other people's essay-style
>         writings, rather than real dialogue.

Yeah, one way transmission. It's kind of hard to argue with someone who
never answers back. Let's face it, its hard to argue with a placard.

> 
> Recommendation: Don't respond to Ralph's pre-potted postings.  Try to
>                 draw him into real interactive debate/discussion.
          B[B

I agree with that, but the nonsense these people spew out is so outrageous,
and deliberately crafted to offend, that someone (especially newbies)
are bound to try to counter it. You can't argue with a rock. And
we can't turn it off. All we can do is just ignore it and hope they get bored
and go away.

But it won't happen. I wish these nebulous "THOUGHT POLICE" would take
their job seriously turn these guys off the net >:)

-Garret
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy