Note to reader: Each writer's letter is in normal type; Birdman's responses are in italics.
[Note that letters are separated by a dotted line: --------. Letters are unedited.]
I find your views interesting. (I won't deny that they offend me, but I'm going to leave that aside.) After having read your email and visited your web site, I have decided to respond with a few questions. I am pleased to see that you have been trained in philosophy, as I have been. I trust that you will therefore respond to my questions logically, without the usual type of fallacious "reasoning" that we so often see from the unwashed (most particularly the ad hominem, of course, but other errors as well). I hope that you will, in turn, recognize that my queries are similarly motivated and are not meant to be "loaded" or deliberately antagonizing.
I hope, in particular, that you will keep that in mind with question number one, which is:
1) Why do you object to being called an anti-semite, when it is quite obvious that that is exactly what you are? An anti-semite, as the name implies, is simply someone who is opposed to Jews. It's true that the label has generally come to mean "non-thinking arbitrary bigot", but you are certainly intelligent and educated enough to understand that the word "anti-semite" has a broader meaning, one that encompasses your own stance.
2) Throughout all of your writings, I sense a theme of self-centeredness, that "they're all my enemies and are doing this just to harm me" -- for example, the new, shorter, limit on letters introduced "just to silence you", and the decision not to print your letter because you "outsmarted the AMC when they tried to silence me with their new letter limit". Do you really believe that the AMC (or any other organization) is spending such time and effort on you? To be honest, I don't see anything in your writings that isn't being said by others in other venues (such as The Spotlight). Very few people are so important as to be worth that kind of persecutive effort, and I doubt that you are one of them. You almost make the AMC sound like a branch of the Illuminati.
I suggest also that you apply Occam's Razor. Is it really the simplest and clearest explanation to say that the AMC is doing all this because the entire group has a personal vendetta against you? I think not.
3) This one is more personal for me since I am a gun-rights activist. You claim that the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication. At the same time, you correctly note that virtually all Jews favor a ban on the ownership of firearms. Isn't this inconsistent? Why would the Jews publicly speak in favor of banning guns, while at the same time claiming that there was a holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered after having been systematically disarmed by Hitler?
4) This one's a little thorny, but please bear with me. Most people know the "six million Jews" figure about the Holocaust. A much smaller number know that the total number killed in the Holocaust is 13-16 million, out of whom six million were Jews -- that is, of all the people killed in the Holocaust, Jews were actually in the minority. If the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication, why would the Jews create this kind of inconsistency -- and then apparently try to cover it up?
I look forward to your response. I'm sure that it will be very interesting reading.
-- "Have you ever wondered why there is so much pain in the world? Let me tell you why. It's because, despite the best advice of people who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things." --Galen, "Babylon: Crusade"
Parrish
-------
Dear Parrish:
My responses to your questions are interleaved with your text and set off with asterisks.******
----- Original Message ----- From: Parrish To: Birdman Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 9:27 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
I find your views interesting. (I won't deny that they offend me, but I'm going to leave that aside.) After having read your email and visited your web site, I have decided to respond with a few questions. I am pleased to see that you have been trained in philosophy, as I have been. I trust that you will therefore respond to my questions logically, without the usual type of fallacious "reasoning" that we so often see from the unwashed (most particularly the ad hominem, of course, but other errors as well). I hope that you will, in turn, recognize that my queries are similarly motivated and are not meant to be "loaded" or deliberately antagonizing.
I hope, in particular, that you will keep that in mind with question number one, which is:
1) Why do you object to being called an anti-semite, when it is quite obvious that that is exactly what you are? An anti-semite, as the name implies, is simply someone who is opposed to Jews. It's true that the label has generally come to mean "non-thinking arbitrary bigot", but you are certainly intelligent and educated enough to understand that the word "anti-semite" has a broader meaning, one that encompasses your own stance.
***** 'Antisemite' is always used as a smear term. Furthermore, it is inaccurate: You could call me a Jewish critic or skeptic, but anti- implies 'totally against', which I am not. I have quoted a number of Jews on my page, if you bother to read it. For example, Sherman Skolnick or JPFO in my links section.
2) Throughout all of your writings, I sense a theme of self-centeredness, that "they're all my enemies and are doing this just to harm me" -- for example, the new, shorter, limit on letters introduced "just to silence you", and the decision not to print your letter because you "outsmarted the AMC when they tried to silence me with their new letter limit". Do you really believe that the AMC (or any other organization) is spending such time and effort on you?
******* Anybody who has upset AMC so much as to cause them to devote a full 1 1/2 page special section to denouncing is easily someone who they would limit the length of letters for. You don't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to figure that out. Nor do you have to be one to figure out that, altho I was promised a 150 word response, within 24 hours of submitting my letter, it was rejected by AMC Chairman Beatty. That I have to repeat all this strongly suggests either that you are a careless reader, or that your reasoning powers are a bit impaired. As for being different from the Spotlight, etc, the point is not what is said, but that it is in a presumably 'respectable' publication -- hence one which is likely to reach those who don't know about 'disreputable publications.'
To be honest, I don't see anything in your writings that isn't being said by others in other venues (such as The Spotlight). Very few people are so important as to be worth that kind of persecutive effort, and I doubt that you are one of them. You almost make the AMC sound like a branch of the Illuminati.
I suggest also that you apply Occam's Razor. Is it really the simplest and clearest explanation to say that the AMC is doing all this because the entire group has a personal vendetta against you? I think not.
****** I never said that. The AMC was upset because of the huge amount of mail they got from the Self-Chosen and their liberal friends. They had to cover their ass. It was probably not personal against me.
3) This one is more personal for me since I am a gun-rights activist. You claim that the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication.
****** This is a clearly careless remark. Revisionists don't deny SOMETHING happened, only that the Orthodox Jewish Version is false, primarily, gas chambers and the Holy Six Million.
At the same time, you correctly note that virtually all Jews favor a ban on the ownership of firearms.
******* Only for the goyim. In Israel, everybody is armed. And so is the JDL in USA.
Isn't this inconsistent? Why would the Jews publicly speak in favor of banning guns, while at the same time claiming that there was a holocaust in which six million Jews were murdered after having been systematically disarmed by Hitler?
4) This one's a little thorny, but please bear with me. Most people know the "six million Jews" figure about the Holocaust. A much smaller number know that the total number killed in the Holocaust is 13-16 million, out of whom six million were Jews -- that is, of all the people killed in the Holocaust, Jews were actually in the minority. If the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication, why would the Jews create this kind of inconsistency -- and then apparently try to cover it up?
***** I don't 'know' that the 13-16 figure is true, so there is nothing to answer. But you could also ask why have Jews told so many lies about the Big H, since these lies are getting found out (eg, the soap and lampshade stories).
I look forward to your response. I'm sure that it will be very interesting reading.
******* You should be REALLY offended now. --
"Have you ever wondered why there is so much pain in the world? Let me tell you why. It's because, despite the best advice of people who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things." --Galen, "Babylon: Crusade"
Parrish
***** I don't bother with encoding. I work openly. The SOBs know where they can find me if they want me. My best protection is being public.
-------
Dear Parrish:
My responses to your questions are interleaved with your text and set off with asterisks.******
My responses to your responses are similarly offset, mine with dashes for the sake of clarity.
1) Why do you object to being called an anti-semite, when it is quite obvious that that is exactly what you are? An anti-semite, as the name implies, is simply someone who is opposed to Jews. It's true that the label has generally come to mean "non-thinking arbitrary bigot", but you are certainly intelligent and educated enough to understand that the word "anti-semite" has a broader meaning, one that encompasses your own stance.
***** 'Antisemite' is always used as a smear term. Furthermore, it is inaccurate: You could call me a Jewish critic or skeptic, but anti- implies 'totally against', which I am not. I have quoted a number of Jews on my page, if you bother to read it. For example, Sherman Skolnick or JPFO in my links section.
-----As I pointed out, I have bothered to read it. The fact that you find a small number of Jews "unobjectionable" does not automatically disqualify the "anti-semite" label, anymore than the label of "racist" would be automatically disqualified from someone who says that "some of my best friends are blacks." Quite the contrary, in fact.
2) Throughout all of your writings, I sense a theme of self-centeredness, that "they're all my enemies and are doing this just to harm me" -- for example, the new, shorter, limit on letters introduced "just to silence you", and the decision not to print your letter because you "outsmarted the AMC when they tried to silence me with their new letter limit". Do you really believe that the AMC (or any other organization) is spending such time and effort on you?
******* Anybody who has upset AMC so much as to cause them to devote a full 1 1/2 page special section to denouncing is easily someone who they would limit the length of letters for. You don't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to figure that out. Nor do you have to be one to figure out that, altho I was promised a 150 word response, within 24 hours of submitting my letter, it was rejected by AMC Chairman Beatty. That I have to repeat all this strongly suggests either that you are a careless reader, or that your reasoning powers are a bit impaired.
-----Disappointing. An ad hominem that I was hoping not to see. Nevertheless, I will address it. As I said, I majored in philosophy. I had a 3.6 GPA in it, and although you don't know my instructor and academic advisor, please believe me when I tell you that he would never allow me to get away with misreading a text (on the one occasion when I did make that error -- writing a study of Schopenhauer's ethics, with an emphasis on comparing and contrasting the system to the Kantian system which he adapted -- he came down on me like the proverbial ton of bricks). As to my reasoning powers, I took several units of Aristotelian logic and symbolic logic and received A's in both. Also, I am a computer network administrator. Logical thought is a fundamental skill required by my job.
I submit also that you are committing the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". You submitted a criticism of Jews, after which a letter length limit was introduced. However, that does not prove, or even suggest, that the former caused the latter.
As for being different from the Spotlight, etc, the point is not what is said, but that it is in a presumably 'respectable' publication -- hence one which is likely to reach those who don't know about 'disreputable publications.'
-----I'm not sure where you get the notion that the "Mensa Bulletin" is a respectable publication -- perhaps you are presupposing it. I, for one, would never make such an assumption. Mensa is a highly controversial organization, and it follows, therefore, that any publications that it produces would be similarly controversial.
If you doubt that Mensa is controversial, I suggest you look back on your experience with telling people that you are a member. I have had a number of "neutral" responses, and a number of denouncements that I am an egotist. No one -- and I emphasize this, no one -- has said that they respect my membership, or admire it, or even tolerate it. If your experience in this regard is different, then I would consider you truly fortunate indeed.
I suggest also that you apply Occam's Razor. Is it really the simplest and clearest explanation to say that the AMC is doing all this because the entire group has a personal vendetta against you? I think not.
****** I never said that. The AMC was upset because of the huge amount of mail they got from the Self-Chosen and their liberal friends. They had to cover their ass. It was probably not personal against me.
-----I will concede this point. Many people forget that Mensa's membership requirement is only the IQ score and nothing else. It's supposed to be a forum for ALL to share their ideas, but the socialists often reject or condemn this notion, regardless of who might be challenging the norm.
3) This one is more personal for me since I am a gun-rights activist. You claim that the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication.
****** This is a clearly careless remark. Revisionists don't deny SOMETHING happened, only that the Orthodox Jewish Version is false, primarily, gas chambers and the Holy Six Million.
-----It wasn't careless. An oversimplification, perhaps, but then, I was assuming that you would understand what I meant. One recalls the old joke about what you do when you "assume".
At the same time, you correctly note that virtually all Jews favor a ban on the ownership of firearms.
******* Only for the goyim. In Israel, everybody is armed. And so is the JDL in USA.
-----I knew about Israel, of course. I didn't know about the JDL. However, it still doesn't address the fact that non-Israeli Jews are far and away socialist leftists, favoring, among other things, a ban on the personal ownership of firearms (with the exception of the "infallible government"). Dear Abby and Ann Landers, for example, are both vehemently anti-gun (they are identical twin Jews, in case you didn't know -- although as well informed as you clearly are, I suspect you probably did).
4) This one's a little thorny, but please bear with me. Most people know the "six million Jews" figure about the Holocaust. A much smaller number know that the total number killed in the Holocaust is 13-16 million, out of whom six million were Jews -- that is, of all the people killed in the Holocaust, Jews were actually in the minority. If the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication, why would the Jews create this kind of inconsistency -- and then apparently try to cover it up?
***** I don't 'know' that the 13-16 figure is true, so there is nothing to answer. But you could also ask why have Jews told so many lies about the Big H, since these lies are getting found out (eg, the soap and lampshade stories).
-----My point was that we all learn in high school (or even sooner) that "six million Jews died in the Holocaust". Later, some of us learn that the Holocaust was much broader than just Jews. So my original question stands. Why would the Jews fabricate a Holocaust story as part of some kind of conspiracy and include some element of the story that they would subsequently feel the need to suppress?
I look forward to your response. I'm sure that it will be very interesting reading.
******* You should be REALLY offended now.
-----Not seriously offended. Moderately, yes. Perhaps I'm more open-minded than you think. Or perhaps your skills at offending are not as powerful as you suppose. Not sure.
Your comment is rather telling. It tends to make one wonder whether you are adhering to "offensive" viewpoints for no other reason than to give offense, not because you actually believe them. If this is not the case, you might want to be more cautious with this kind of remark.
***** I don't bother with encoding. I work openly. The SOBs know where they can find me if they want me. My best protection is being public.
-----Well, this is an entirely different debate, obviously. Rather than even try to go into it, let me just say that my views on encrypted email are essentially identical to the views of PGP's creator. I don't know whether you've gone into that or not, but if you care to, look him up and read his opinions.
This comment is also highly narcissistic, as are many of your other comments, but I'm sure you already realize that.
A propos of nothing, will you be in Dallas in July? -- "Have you ever wondered why there is so much pain in the world? Let me tell you why. It's because, despite the best advice of people who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things." --Galen, "Babylon: Crusade"
Parrish
----------
My new responses are marked with ######.
----- Original Message ----- From: Parrish To: Birdman Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:13 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
Dear Parrish:
My responses to your questions are interleaved with your text and set off with asterisks.******
My responses to your responses are similarly offset, mine with dashes for the sake of clarity.
1) Why do you object to being called an anti-semite, when it is quite obvious that that is exactly what you are? An anti-semite, as the name implies, is simply someone who is opposed to Jews. It's true that the label has generally come to mean "non-thinking arbitrary bigot", but you are certainly intelligent and educated enough to understand that the word "anti-semite" has a broader meaning, one that encompasses your own stance.
***** 'Antisemite' is always used as a smear term. Furthermore, it is inaccurate: You could call me a Jewish critic or skeptic, but anti- implies 'totally against', which I am not. I have quoted a number of Jews on my page, if you bother to read it. For example, Sherman Skolnick or JPFO in my links section.
-----As I pointed out, I have bothered to read it. The fact that you find a small number of Jews "unobjectionable" does not automatically disqualify the "anti-semite" label, anymore than the label of "racist" would be automatically disqualified from someone who says that "some of my best friends are blacks." Quite the contrary, in fact.
##### Not the contrary at all. Any idiot, to say nothing of a philosopher, should recognize that if you are 'for some Jews' then you aren't 'against all Jews', ie. antisemitic.
2) Throughout all of your writings, I sense a theme of self-centeredness, that "they're all my enemies and are doing this just to harm me" -- for example, the new, shorter, limit on letters introduced "just to silence you", and the decision not to print your letter because you "outsmarted the AMC when they tried to silence me with their new letter limit". Do you really believe that the AMC (or any other organization) is spending such time and effort on you?
******* Anybody who has upset AMC so much as to cause them to devote a full 1 1/2 page special section to denouncing is easily someone who they would limit the length of letters for. You don't have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to figure that out. Nor do you have to be one to figure out that, altho I was promised a 150 word response, within 24 hours of submitting my letter, it was rejected by AMC Chairman Beatty. That I have to repeat all this strongly suggests either that you are a careless reader, or that your reasoning powers are a bit impaired.
-----Disappointing. An ad hominem that I was hoping not to see.
##### You can try to comfort yourself that my comment is ad hominem, but it is a fact, or as close as I can come.
Nevertheless, I will address it. As I said, I majored in philosophy. I had a 3.6 GPA in it, and although you don't know my instructor and academic advisor, please believe me when I tell you that he would never allow me to get away with misreading a text (on the one occasion when I did make that error -- writing a study of Schopenhauer's ethics, with an emphasis on comparing and contrasting the system to the Kantian system which he adapted -- he came down on me like the proverbial ton of bricks). As to my reasoning powers, I took several units of Aristotelian logic and symbolic logic and received A's in both. Also, I am a computer network administrator. Logical thought is a fundamental skill required by my job.
##### You may do fine in some areas, not so fine in others. Doesn't mean you weren't illogical here. (You were)
I submit also that you are committing the fallacy of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". You submitted a criticism of Jews, after which a letter length limit was introduced. However, that does not prove, or even suggest, that the former caused the latter.
##### It very strongly suggests a cause-effect. Sure, I can't prove it -- I would have to be a mind reader who can show others the minds I have read. But it is strongly suggestive, in the same sense that a smoking gun in a robber's hand after a robbery suggests who killed the banker, tho it doesn't prove it.
As for being different from the Spotlight, etc, the point is not what is said, but that it is in a presumably 'respectable' publication -- hence one which is likely to reach those who don't know about 'disreputable publications.'
-----I'm not sure where you get the notion that the "Mensa Bulletin" is a respectable publication -- perhaps you are presupposing it. I, for one, would never make such an assumption. Mensa is a highly controversial organization, and it follows, therefore, that any publications that it produces would be similarly controversial.
###### This remark to me simply indicates -- and I mean this as a fact, not an 'ad hominem' -- a deficiency of perceptiveness. It is one thing to have a 'fringe' publication say forbidden things -- you can 'counter' it by saying, Oh, it's just a fringe publication. But when the Bulletin publishes such remarks, it adds a patina of respectability, AND it gets to an audience who have never been exposed to such views, both of which things are 'dangerous'.
If you doubt that Mensa is controversial, I suggest you look back on your experience with telling people that you are a member. I have had a number of "neutral" responses, and a number of denouncements that I am an egotist.
##### I never tell anyone I am a member -- not to their face anyway. Unless in a very special context, I WOULD consider it egotistical.
No one -- and I emphasize this, no one -- has said that they respect my membership, or admire it, or even tolerate it. If your experience in this regard is different, then I would consider you truly fortunate indeed.
I suggest also that you apply Occam's Razor. Is it really the simplest and clearest explanation to say that the AMC is doing all this because the entire group has a personal vendetta against you? I think not.
****** I never said that. The AMC was upset because of the huge amount of mail they got from the Sef-Chosen and their liberal friends. They had to cover their ass. It was probably not personal against me.
-----I will concede this point. Many people forget that Mensa's membership requirement is only the IQ score and nothing else. It's supposed to be a forum for ALL to share their ideas, but the socialists often reject or condemn this notion, regardless of who might be challenging the norm.
3) This one is more personal for me since I am a gun-rights activist. You claim that the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication.
****** This is a clearly careless remark. Revisionists don't deny SOMETHING happened, only that the Orthodox Jewish Version is false, primarily, gas chambers and the Holy Six Million.
-----It wasn't careless. An oversimplification, perhaps, but then, I was assuming that you would understand what I meant. One recalls the old joke about what you do when you "assume".
At the same time, you correctly note that virtually all Jews favor a ban on the ownership of firearms.
******* Only for the goyim. In Israel, everybody is armed. And so is the JDL in USA.
-----I knew about Israel, of course. I didn't know about the JDL. However, it still doesn't address the fact that non-Israeli Jews are far and away socialist leftists, favoring, among other things, a ban on the personal ownership of firearms (with the exception of the "infallible government"). Dear Abby and Ann Landers, for example, are both vehemently anti-gun (they are identical twin Jews, in case you didn't know -- although as well informed as you clearly are, I suspect you probably did).
##### It would be interesting to know how many Jews who are for 'gun control' are also armed. There is often a disconnect between politics and the personal. Look at the recent brouhaha with Rosie O'Donnell -- who I believe is Jewish.
4) This one's a little thorny, but please bear with me. Most people know the "six million Jews" figure about the Holocaust. A much smaller number know that the total number killed in the Holocaust is 13-16 million, out of whom six million were Jews -- that is, of all the people killed in the Holocaust, Jews were actually in the minority. If the Holocaust is a Jewish fabrication, why would the Jews create this kind of inconsistency -- and then apparently try to cover it up?
***** I don't 'know' that the 13-16 figure is true, so there is nothing to answer. But you could also ask why have Jews told so many lies about the Big H, since these lies are getting found out (eg, the soap and lampshade stories).
-----My point was that we all learn in high school (or even sooner) that "six million Jews died in the Holocaust". Later, some of us learn that the Holocaust was much broader than just Jews. So my original question stands. Why would the Jews fabricate a Holocaust story as part of some kind of conspiracy and include some element of the story that they would subsequently feel the need to suppress?
###### It's not as simple as deciding to fabricate a story. The fabrication grew out of wartime propaganda and the get-the-nazis-at-any-cost-testimony of the Nuremberg trials. Once it was on record, it had to be defended. Then it became PROFITABLE, so that HAD to be defended. etc
I look forward to your response. I'm sure that it will be very interesting reading.
******* You should be REALLY offended now.
-----Not seriously offended. Moderately, yes. Perhaps I'm more open-minded than you think. Or perhaps your skills at offending are not as powerful as you suppose. Not sure.
Your comment is rather telling. It tends to make one wonder whether you are adhering to "offensive" viewpoints for no other reason than to give offense, not because you actually believe them. If this is not the case, you might want to be more cautious with this kind of remark.
***** I don't bother with encoding. I work openly. The SOBs know where they can find me if they want me. My best protection is being public.
-----Well, this is an entirely different debate, obviously. Rather than even try to go into it, let me just say that my views on encrypted email are essentially identical to the views of PGP's creator. I don't know whether you've gone into that or not, but if you care to, look him up and read his opinions.
This comment is also highly narcissistic, as are many of your other comments, but I'm sure you already realize that.
##### What I realize are your ad hominem remarks, and the need to build yourself up by trying to tear me down (it won't work).
A propos of nothing, will you be in Dallas in July?
##### No. --
"Have you ever wondered why there is so much pain in the world? Let me tell you why. It's because, despite the best advice of people who know what they are talking about, other people insist on doing the most massively stupid things." --Galen, "Babylon: Crusade"
Parrish
--------
Hmm. This entire conversation is simply not going in the direction that I had hoped, so I'm going to terminate it at this point. I hope you will understand that this does not mean that I am conceding to anything you have said (other than the one point that I explicitly DID concede to) but merely that I regard this interaction as nonproductive.
I hope this note finds you doing well. Best of luck to you in all your endeavors, present and future.
-------
Parrish: I am sorry you feel discouraged. I have answered you as properly as I am able. Feel free to write again. -j
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *