From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: Nilges
Date: 27 Aug 92 20:13:17 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Aug27.171754.4832@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug27.144832.1907@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU
>(Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>A belief that the structures of economic and political life have a
>>particular tendency, for example towards neo-colonialism, is distinct
>>from conspiracy theories, whether those that picture a roomful of Elders
>>of Zion or a roomful of specific capitalists.  On your account, ANY
>>attempt whatsoever to form a coherent picture of international politics
>>is a sort of Protocol of the Elders of Zion, and university departments
>>of politics and economics are exactly equivalent to Nazi think-tanks.
>>This is absurd.
>
>No, your use of standard codewords for Jews, as well understood by
>NAAWP, the Klan, the Liberty Lobby, and other anti-Semitic groups
>is what constituted the anti-Semitism in your post.  And who are you

My phrase was "scum of all persuasions": you changed this, Tedster, to
"scum of all nations", in a direct violation of net ethics and as a lie.
The preceding phrase, "scum of all persuasions" (in which group you
belong) includes Jews and Gentiles, from Kuwaiti princes to Saddam
Hussein to Begin to Serb militia to George Bush.  You changed it to make
me appear like an anti-semite.

>to tell me, a Jew, what is or isn't anti-Semitic?  I vaguely recall

If I cannot determine what is or is not anti-Semitic then I must have
you tell me what is anti-Semitic, which I do not propose to do.  And
insofar as Arabs are "Semites" (using Edward Said's terms) then YOU are
guilty of anti-Semitism.

>a certain level of anger from you when others tried to define what
>is or isn't offensive to minorities, especially in relation to
>Posner's use of the word "miscegenator".  Why the double standard?  

The eminent Richard A. Posner uses "monsters including Othello the black
miscegenator" as a phrase in his book law and literature (which I the
illiterate punk somehow was able to read).  This revealed to me the
racism at the heart of the "law 'n economix" movement from the dear old
U of Chitown, which also brought us Pinochet's Chile.  This is the source
of Tedster's reference here.

Teddie-poo, the "double standard" to which you refer is the fact that
you are wrong and I am right.

>
>But I tire of this.  I have to read crits all day at work, and I

So get a real job.  I am familiar enough with the anger of graduate
students and low-level TAs, oppressed as they are by the universities
and the IRS.  And it's interesting that you "have" to read crits, and
that intellectual labor at the U of Chi is regarded as onerous.  I know
it's tough to pay them dues to get that union card so you can Get
Tenured and spend the rest of your life on your rear end, but hey,
that's life in the big city.  And if for some sillyass reason you read
legal critics as part of a real job, my apologies.

>have no desire to come home and listen to the same drivel, as illiterately
>interpreted by Ed, who hasn't even read the works or Court decisions
>he criticizes.  Furthermore, by Ed's own standard, Ed has no right
>to free speech as an illiterate (cf. his comments on Shakespeare,
>Socrates, Miller, R.A.V., and Posner) anti-Semitic lying punk.  Thus,
>it's only fair to apply Ed's own standards to himself, and I'm creating,
>much to my dismay, a kill-file whose only entry is "Nilges."  Goodbye,
>Ed.  Take your anti-Semitism and illiteracy elsewhere.

Translation: homina homina homina (Ralph Kramdenese for "I am
defeated."  You shall join Misha Zany in MY  killfile.