From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Personal attacks
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:10:11 GMT
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology

In article <C0GLHI.1Jz@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu ( ) writes:
>      Mr Gary Strand--
>
>      It seems as though you have seen fit to personalize many of my comments,
>to the point of taking offense, and even referred directly to me, causing 
>offense.  Thus, I have no problem directing this statement to you on the 
>newsgroup.  You opened yourself up for it.

what about me? did i open *my*self up for it too? was my attempt
to explain logic to you sufficient cause for you to include me
in *your* attack, saying i defend genocide and comparing me to
a holocaust denier? *you* were the one who used the second-person
plural pronoun in your post ("you" in the plural form).

and i have seen very little wrong in what Gary Strand has said.
in fact you are the one who is doing most of the attacking
and mouth-stuffing of words around here.

>      For something to be genocide at a point in time does not require
>the descendants of the <genociders> to maintain the same ideas.  I still
>claim that the death (fairly systematic--only took about 150 years) of the 
>American Indian was genocide.  I also claim that to deny it as genocide on the
>basis of comparison to the Holocaust is racist and ethnocentrist.  I did not
>compare the death of the American Indian to the Holocaust--others did.  Those
>words were put in my mouth by YOU and others LIKE YOU.

such as? who are these others?
who has put words in your mouth?

>As for who "you"
>means, it now (if I must define it) means Gary Strand and those others who
>have compared the genocide of the Indian with the Genocide of the Jew and
>found it to be less evil.

i see. you can't *explain* your position, so instead you choose
to go on the attack? i for one, never used the word "evil".

>If you (meaning the reader) do not fit this category,
>then you are exempt from the previously stated "you". 

you are obviously more interested in your own agenda than in knowledge
or reason. if you have anything to say to me, say it directly. and be
prepared to back it up. *i* will say publicly that i regret trying to
honestly answer what i thought was a genuine request from you at first.
it is clear to me now that your only intent was to sucker people in so
you could flame them later. very disappointing.

>      Now, since you brought up nettiquete, I'll inform you (Gary Strand) of the
>same.  If you (meaning anyone) wish to make personal statements to a specific
>individual, then use e-mail, until such time as that person makes personal 
>attacks/remarks on the net to you.  In that case, returned remarks should be
>used only to defend your own words, and cite the original authors of the
>words that were placed in your own mouth (so to speak).
>      Having defended my own view

ha! you have done no such thing.

>and attributed those views which were
>attributed incorrectly to me to those who did voice them, I now close.

too bad you hadn't closed long ago. this newsgroup is talk.politics.theory.
posting here implies some desire to look at *theoretical* discussions
related to politics or philosophy. but you have refused to do so.
and by your refusal to be rational, this discussion has degenerated
into name-calling and insults.

--
charles
Newsgroups: talk.politics.theory