From: nbadie@rd.hydro.on.ca (Navid Badie)
Subject: Re: Ms King Is this your real name???
Organization: "Ontario Hydro - Research Division"
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 22:20:38 GMT

aaldoubo@copper.denver.colorado.edu (Shaqeeqa) writes:

> In article <1992Nov11.205855.21054@rd.hydro.on.ca> nbadie@rd.hydro.on.ca 
> (Navid Badie) writes:

> >Here we go again with RACIST attacks on people whose opinions do not
> >fit some preconceived notion of "truth". One of the primary purposes of 
> >forums such as this is **to exchange ideas and opinions**. If you choose
> >to engage in personal attacks on those who participate in these
> >discussions, you will only take away from your own credibility in 
> >the future.
> 
> It is true that the purpose of this (and other) newsgroup/s were established
> to exchange ideas and opinons; HOWEVER, when these ideas and opinions are
> used as personal attacks against sensitive issues (like religion), 

Anisa (or is it Shaqeeqa), I just read your followup to my posting, and I 
am sorry for the delay in this reply. Now, allow me to address the points 
you raise.

Could you please explain what you mean by "personal attacks against
sensitive issues (like religion)"? Personal attacks, by definition,
are directed at persons, not issues. 

Perhaps you mean that some persons, who hold some ideas very dear,
feel personally injured when certain issues are discussed, or when
the ideas they hold dear are severely criticized. All I can say is
that I feel sympathy for anyone who is hurt by a discussion, but
that does not constitute a "personal attack". When, however, someone
attacks another person *because* of that person's ideas, that
constitutes a personal attack, which in my opinion is not warranted.

> they lose
> their credibility and are vulnerable to being attacked by people who wish to
> uphold the dignity and rights of not only their religious beliefs but identity

Again, I cannot follow your line of reasoning here. Are you saying that if
a wrong is perpetrated in response to another wrong, then the second wrong
is excusable? (i.e. two wrongs do make a right?) If so, I cannot agree
with you, I am afraid.

> I don't appreciate reading very racist remarks towards anyone and perhaps it
> should be addressed via email, 

I believe that it should be addressed in public. However, I am glad to read 
that you do not favour racist remarks (but am puzzled by your use of the 
adjective "very" before "racist" ?!)

> but you, Mr. Navid, should restrain yourself
> from supporting this 

Anisa, I am doing my best to try to answer your queries and concerns, but you 
have to help me out here. What do you mean by "supporting this"? supporting 
what? All I was saying was people (and that includes everybody) should try
very hard to avoid engaging in personal attacks against those whose opinions
they do not agree with, no matter how wide the gap in opinions happens to be.
Does that sound unreasonable to you?

> by justifying the statements of such people who initiated
> it - unless, of course, you share in their opinions and slanders of Islam and
> Muslim people.

My protest was *against* the personal attack and racist slander. That does
not translate into justification of any statement by the target of the
attack.

> 
> Anisa
 
Although I forget names easily, I seem to remember that you have posted
to s.c.i. on several previous occasions and explained, clarified or
defended the position of Islam as you see it. I also remember that you
managed to do that without engaging in any personal attacks against
anybody. I admire that. I am simply saying that anyone who follows
this style enhances the quality of discussion on s.c.i, and anyone
who resorts to personal attacks simply tarnishes his/her own credibility.

I think, and hope, that you can agree with the above statement.

I apologize for rambling on.

Cheers,
Navid Badie.
====================================================
nbadie@rd.hydro.on.ca
To state the obvious:
Any opinions expressed in the above are mine, not my employer's.