From: clmn@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Coleman)
Subject: Re: Is Failure to Support Pollard Anti-Semitic?
Reply-To: clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Live & Direct from Downtown Petah Tikva ISRAEL
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 23:32:36 GMT

David Sternlight has kindly written the following:
 
> Bill Coleman continues to misstate the facts and refuse to listen to
> what people are saying to him.
>
> One last time:
>
> Nobody accused you of being an anti-semite. What people have said
> is that the charge of "dual loyalty" is an old anti-semitic slur.
> They've pointed out that such charges are seldom raised against other
> groups about which there are far more reasons to be suspicious on
> strictly structural grounds.
 
Now, perhaps David does not keep track of what he posts, but I do.
 
On November 30, David wrote:
 
> Bill Coleman's arguments reflect either moral imbecility or a serious
> case of anti-semitism, and his latest post exacerbates this condition.
...
> That Coleman persists is a sign of either serious bias or a serious
> inability to think clearly.
 
The same day he posted this as well:
 
> Bill Coleman distorts the truth further in his latest anti-semitic
> post by claiming that "the Jewish community's rising to Pollard's
> defense" raises questions of dual loyalty.
 
> READ MY LIPS, BILL:
...
> GOT THAT, COLEMAN?
 
This must have been a bad day because David wasn't finished yet:
 
> Bill Coleman further confirms his anti-semitic credentials by calling
> Brill a Jewish INTELLECTUAL (emphasis added).
>
> It's the old slime, gradually coming out.
 
On December 1 David wrote:
 
> If Coleman doesn't think one should be at least equally suspicious of
> Catholics as Jews, then he is being anti-semitic. If he does, I
> suggest that although he is at least consistent, he can be assisted by
> more serious professional attention than can be provided here.
 
On December 2 David wrote:
 
> Bill Coleman asks what the position of those who live in Israel but
> hold U.S. passports and vote in U.S. elections is.
>
> It's no different than the position of any American living anywhere
> abroad. That Bill should raise it in this context confirms once more,
> if any confirmation were needed, that there's an antisemitic mind
> behind his posts.
 
This list, by the way, is not exhaustive, but in just these few posts
David accuses me of:
 
        1. Moral imbecility
        2. A serious case of anti-semitism
        3. Serious bias
        4. Serious inability to think clearly
        5. Distorting the truth in my latest anti-semitic post
        6. Confirming my anti-semitic credentials
        7. The same old slime
        8. Being anti-semitic OR in need of more professional help than
           he can provide!!!  [THIS ONE IS MY FAVORITE]
        9. Having an antisemitic mind behind my posts
 
I didn't find the post in which he said I have sinister motives, but I
think I've made my point.
 
Nobody has accused me of being an anti-Semite?  Perhaps David can
explain this claim of his (but I doubt it).
 
What bothers me is not that David and one other person choose to post
stuff like this; but that while hundreds of people around the world post
to this newsgroup, less than a half-dozen have either posted or written
to me expressing their outrage.  As usual, the participants in s.c.j are
happy to sit by and watch silently as people post the crudest, most
scurrilous and insulting ad hominem attacks imaginable.  If some idiot
posts an article saying, "Daniel 9 proves that Jesus was the messiah,"
dozens of people will immediately pop up like jacks-in-the-box to refute
this bit of deep wisdom and the newsgroup will be clogged with the
subject for weeks thereafter.  But whenever crude personal attacks (and
NOT just the ones on me!) get posted, shoom d'var!
 

-- 
Bill Coleman
clmn@midway.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish