From: drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr)
Subject: Re: ignorance
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 06:36:51 GMT


In article <C0Jz12.LM2@news.rich.bnr.ca> jarthur@bnr.ca (John Thompson)
writes:
>In article <C0IGo5.C15@cs.uiuc.edu> drk@cs.uiuc.edu (David Kohr) writes:
>>I "take umbrage" at drieux's cowardly, unsubstantiated, childish
>>accusations, such as this one:
>>
>>	ps: not that I would EVER suggest that there are Historical
>>	Revisionists in our midst.
>>
>>which he doesn't even take the trouble to back up.
>
>Perhaps the least of your endearing traits is your pretense at intellectual
>superiority.

I believe that this is an insult.  It has no place in this discussion.

>You seem to think you're entitled to play by a different set of rules. 
>For instance, you are free to interpret what others may say, but you must
>be taken literally.

Not "taken literally", but "quoted accurately".  There is a big difference.

If someone accurately paraphrases or interprets what I say, I won't
complain.  But when I say "I think there is no reason to believe there are
MIA/POW's still alive in Vietnam", and this is turned into "Dave just wants
to forget the men still alive in Vietnam", then I complain.

>Where did drieux's post, factually, say you are the Historical
>Revisionist?

It is very obvious from the preceding thread that this is drieux's
implication:

1.  I say lots of people (not necessarily "a majority") think Vietnamese
Communism was not a threat to their existence.

2.  drieux tries to refute this (incorrectly, as I pointed out) by noting
that the Congresspersons who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
were subsequently voted out of office.

3.  In the same posting, drieux makes the "revisionist" remark, with the
clear implication that by (properly) ignoring the (irrelevant) historical
evidence which he had presented, I was acting as a "historical
revisionist".  There certainly was no one else mentioned in the posting to
whom this remark could have conceivably applied.

I don't think this mechanism is very hard to see.  The fact that drieux
says it by (clear) implication rather than direct statement seems very
cowardly to me.

>Is it your position that anyone who states the opinion that you have a
>narrow, little mind is hurling insults, but that your accusing someone of
>cowardly behavior is all right?

If that behavior is an insult directed at me (as happened in this case),
then I will point it out in the appropriate terms.  Defending yourself
against an attack seems perfectly acceptable to me, and I don't see any
inconsistency here at all.

>You recently were all atwitter because someone said FUCK YOU to you, but
>you feel perfectly free to use phrases which are far more profane to VN
>vets.

Which phrases are these?

>>As for "shut up", that sounds to me like outright censorship.
>
>Whereas your telling someone not to post because they use language which
>is offensive to you is not?

Not only was the language offensive (which is not in itself a problem), but
it was an insult directed at me. It should never have been posted in the
first place.  This is a basic rule of USENET etiquette.  There are
informal, but very definite, rules of etiquette on this forum, and that
posting broke one of them.  This has nothing to do with censorship, but
with civility.

>your posting is so whiny and full of contradictions

"Whiny"?  Then it's unreasonable to expect people to follow basic etiquette
in this newsgroup?

As for contradictions, I think I've answered all of your complaints.
-- 
Dave Kohr     CS Graduate Student     Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Work: 3244 DCL, (217)333-6561  Home: (217)359-9350  E-mail: drk@cs.uiuc.edu
                   "One either has none or not enough."
Newsgroups: alt.war.vietnam