.ll 72
.fo off
.co on 
.ce ((Editor's comments in double parenthesis - Homer))
 
.ce ADR - 427
.ce
 
.ce Copyright (C) Homer Wilson Smith
.ce Redistribution rights granted for non commercial purposes
 
======================================================================== 140
Date:         Fri, 08 Sep 89 18:15:37 EDT
From:         Homer 
Subject:      Re: This is rather ironic, actually
To:           Disarmament Discussion List ,
              adore-l@ualtavm,
              isa811sf@prism.gatech.edu
In-Reply-To:  Message of Fri, 8 Sep 89 16:42:00 EDT from 

>Ah, but there's a difference between flaming and antagonism. I've seen flaming.
>The stuff that was being passed back and forth here was NOT flaming. It was
>open hostility.

     You mean open antagonism, the bad stuff.

>   For example, if I were to make any comments about your (professed) religion
>and justified my statements, we would both be perfectly right to continue to
>discuss them and even to (privately or publicly) state how silly we thought the
>other person.
>   However, if I just came out and said that your religion was stupid, you
>didn't have the brains to figure out how to turn on your terminal and wondered
>how you'd made it this far in life, THAT's antagonistic. I'm expecting
>confrontation (inviting it actually).

     I guess I agree with you in essence and only disagree with the semantics
of how you express it.

     I see flaming as the same thing as antagonism, but some flaming
carries with it specific content, ideas and counter arguements and not
just comments about the other guys mother wearing sweat socks.

     On ADORE-L the 50 percent rule is stated in that manner.  As long
as there is content to balance the flame, everything is ok.

     I suppose there has been some contentless flaming going on here.
Probably most of you think I am guilty of it, however I believe that most
of the time I always have something specific to say about WHY I think the
other guy is insane.  If I have violated this, then shame on me.

     Perhaps a few postings have come by that seem to be heavy on the flame
and low on specific counter arguement, but from my point of view it has
not gotten ridiculous.

>
>>     Children who are not allowed to express their hostility verbally
>>go lower on the tone scale to unexpressed resentment and eventually
>>to covert hositilty where in wars really start.
>
>I disagree with the entire statement. I agree that children who are not allowed
>to express themselves (I don't even think it needs to be expressions of
>hostility) do become resentful. However, that doesn't necessarily lead to
>expressions of violence (in directed or un-directed form). It just leads to
>insanity (clinical, that is).
>
     This hardly sounds like a 'disgreement with my entire statement.'
Violence is mostly one form of insanity.  The Adorian definition of
insanity is:

     Insanity:

     1.  The sometimes covert but always continuous intention to harm
         or destroy.
     2.  Total devotion to stopping something you consider you had NOTHING
         to do with starting.
     3.) Total devotion to starting what you consider you had NOTHING
         to do with stopping.
     4.) Illogically derived, violent solutions to problems that do not exist.

>>     Those who can not stand open verbal volleys are well below even
>>that down in FEAR.  They tremble at anything that moves, even words.
>
>1) That doesn't make sense.

     Get a new brain.

>2) Extracting what sense I can: Words don't move. Ideas don't move. They just
>are. They can be created but not destroyed. You can't un-say something in

     Words certainly do move, at the speed of sound.  They impinge, they
get carried from people to people through many mediums, they have
vectors just like viruses, and some people are terrified of words.

     Ideas also have a speed of movement through out society and planet
Earth.  Some people spend their whole lives slowing them down or trying
to stop them cold.  Parents do this to children all the time.

     Christians (yuk) do it to everyone all the time.   A Christian's
basic operating principle is that if you TALK about something bad your
children will go out and try it immediately.  Thus to prevent sin, they
never talk about drugs, sex, abortion, menstruation, feminine hygiene until
the child finds out about it for themselves.  I know a whole family that runs
this way.

     The drug Czar himself has said that he would prefer if stars did not
talk about their prior addictions lest their followers go out and try
drugs themselves.  Thus such a parent would never discuss their own problem
with drugs with their children, they would hide it and probably not even
get help for it lest their children find out, and the children end up
finding out the hard way later, and the parents said 'we did our best, it
was the Devil.'  Such despicable people, I can not tell you how much
it curdles my stomach to think about them.

     Christians are basically scared of their own souls and act that way
and are the single biggest social menace today.

     With their stupid 'Earth was made 6000 years ago mentality' they
can not even span the enormity of the universe they are in and the
impossible stupidity of the God they proclaim.  A God of hate and vengance,
and Armageddon and religous bigotry.

     The biggest religious bigot of all is their own god damn God.

>we would like to get back on track (as we have been since you haven't been
>participating (interpret that as you will...)).

     That is easy to interpret.  Homer does not want to discuss
disarmament and constantly tries to derail this list from important
topics to his own personal insane rantings and ravings.

     Don being the Christian whimp that he is does not have the courage
to rid this list of Homer although he has probably been asked a million
times by all the properly outraged subscribers.  He has been loosing
subscribers by the droves and his list will soon consist of Homer, Dimitri,
and Swett at which moment Don will himself probably sign off rather than
do the right thing which is take effective action against the Homerian
criminal element.

     I on the other hand believe that I am one of a number of people on this
list who have the guts and courage to talk about exactly what needs to
be talked about to solve the problem of people hating each other.
The fact that there is so much opposition to my postings is merely a sign
that possibly the Earth is not worth disarming and we would all be doing better
if the scourge of present human kind were erased.

     Personally I believe that Don is doing a wonderful job of
recgonizinng that all these subjects are important to disarmament and he,
like I, understands that the flaming will subside as it always does, and
that in the end something of content will have been established, of which
an awareness of peoples antagonism's will be an important part.

 Homer               Disarmament Discuss  9/08/89*This is rather ironic, actual