Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rabbit.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!allegra!alice!rabbit!jj
From: jj@rabbit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Peace, "idiotic articles", and the need for respect
Message-ID: <2543@rabbit.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-Feb-84 12:21:35 EST
Article-I.D.: rabbit.2543
Posted: Fri Feb 24 12:21:35 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 25-Feb-84 04:23:28 EST
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 65

>From alice!allegra!eagle!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxl!pvp Wed Dec 31 19:00:00 1969
>
>
>A third alternative is to simply ignore the article. 
>This seems to be tantamount to simply abandoning netnews
>to the idiots, though. Now that all these articles get sent
>to other countries, do we want to let these wild assertions
>pass unchallenged? What image are we presenting to the rest of the
>world? That our citizens are all as stupid as our president?

Now you know where I've been hiding, Phil.
Consider your own words.

I do have a few suggestions:
	1)  Why don't we ALL  try to tone
down the obnoxious emotional ranting, references to religion,
disparaging remarks used instead of reason, etc, and remember
that the other authors on this net are also people?
	2) Why don't we all  forswear doing
things like sending people mail that tells them that they should
see a psychatrist, or telling them that rabbit!jj  is worse than Hitler or Stalin,
or whatever, and try to assume that the other person/people are
just as human and well intentioned as you are?  That would remove
a lot of the incentive to wave around emotional claptrap.
	3)  Why don't we ALL assume that the other person
is neither insane nor evil, and also has some reasoning
capability?  Why don't we further assume that this reasoning
capability has been USED to reach the conclusions that motivate
the person, and that there is undoubtedly more to the person's
position than fits in a single netnews article?
	
	In the dying debate on world hunger, causes, and solutions
thereof, I have been accused of being worse than Hitler, Amin, Stalin,
etc.  I have been advised to see a psychatrist, and told
that I will go to Hell because of my "insane ravings".  All of
this venom has come from ONE single person on the net, and has been
mailed not only to me, but also apparantly to anyone (at least three 
instances that I've heard of) who has complained to this particular author
about their behavior.   

	It's clear to me that it only takes ONE person to
completely eliminate reasonable interchange on this net, and
that net.politics has been the (deliberate?) victim of such a power play
for the last six weeks.  

	I would like to urge all readers who are interested
in reasonable dialog to attempt to ignore the deliberate baiting,
and try to start a constructive dialog, devoid of emotional ranting,
attacks, and baiting.  I would also urge those individuals who
engage in such baiting  to attempt to modify their behavior.  I, personally,
will assume that those who do NOT modify their behavior to
be engaging in deliberate stifling of useful discourse.

Yours for peace, plenty, and a useful communications medium,