From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: Personal attacks
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:05:01 GMT

  [Bad Subject: line. I'm sorry if you think my posts have been personal at-
   tacks. On the other hand, this latest post of yours is certainly one.]

k > Karen (branwen@sage.cc.purdue.edu)

k >      Mr Gary Strand--

  Yo.

k > 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.

  I'm a shiverin'. Sorry, but given that we're limited to characters on a 
  screen, all I know of your existence is your arguments, such as they are.
  I was hoping for an interesting discussion, but it seems I've been misled,
  and all we've got is someone whose mind is already made up, who isn't even
  willing to consider for one second any other arguments or points, and who
  gets all huffy when the other person (me) doesn't back off and accept her
  statements without question. 

  What *was* the point of your original post if it wasn't to provoke discus-
  sion, anyway?

k > For something to be genocide at a point in time does not require the des-
    cendants of the <genociders> to maintain the same ideas.  

  Huh? I hope you're not making the argument that from the instant the white
  Europeans set foot in the Americas they were solely interested in killing
  as many of the natives as possible. The sole purpose of the Holocaust was
  the extermination of millions of people, and as has been pointed out, it
  even diverted resources away from the Nazi war effort. The same cannot be
  said of the European colonization of the Americas.

k > I still claim that the death (fairly systematic--only took about 150 years)

  More like 250 years, actually, from the mid-1600s until the late 1800s.

k > of the American Indian was genocide.

  Simply stating this over and over doesn't make it true.

k > I also claim that to deny it as genocide on the basis of comparison to the
    Holocaust is racist and ethnocentrist.

  Arrgh! I'm non-PC.

  Since the usual basis for comparison when discussing genocide is the Holo-
  caust, I mentioned it, and the differences between it and what happened to
  the American Indians. Does this mean I deny that the latter was genocide?
  Not really. You practically define genocide so that no argument can be made
  against your definition. That's what I've been trying to illustrate.

k > 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.

  Where did I say this? I said it was *different*. If you choose to see that
  as some sort of approval or rationalization, that's your problem.

  To wit:
    "It becomes incredibly difficult to determine which of a set of 
     immoral acts is the most immoral when all are incredibly evil. 
     Is Ted Bundy worse than the Son of Sam? Jack the Ripper? Was
     Stalin worse than Hitler? Mao? Pol Pot?"

  At no point did I say what you claim I did. You're putting words in my mouth.

k > 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).

  Exsqueeze me, but we're all living human beings out here. If you can't ad-
  dress your statements to the group-at-large as well as the individuals who
  are discussing the given topic with you, then you aren't a very effective
  debater.

k > Having defended my own view,

  Like I said, merely by stating it over and over again. That's not much of a
  defense.

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

  Pity. You took questions about and counterarguments to your views as some 
  kind of personal attack, and since (it seems) you can't believe that some-
  one else can have a different viewpoint from your own, you launch into an
  unwarranted series of assumptions and conclusions (I'm in the same class as
  those scumbags who deny that the Holocaust ever happened, I mean, really!).
  They're uncalled-for and ridiculous.

  You were never interested in a discussion. You just wanted a soapbox, and
  you're upset that I didn't play along and keep quiet. Too bad.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
Xref: sparky talk.politics.theory:5616 talk.politics.misc:66975