Note to reader: Each writer's letter is in normal type; Birdman's responses are in italics.
[Letters are separated with a short dotted line: -------. Letters are unedited.]
John,
Your position has some fundamental strengths. I would agree that liberals are generally harmful to civilization. And I would agree that many Jews are liberals. But, it is profoundly irrational to claim that all Jews are liberals. Or all Italians are Catholics and mobsters. Or all Irish men are drunkards.
Your Website takes the view that dissension is normal, healthy, and useful. In fact, diplomacy accomplishes much more. You can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
Rather than attacking Mensa and further alienating yourself, why not reconsider your approach? I mean, what is your goal, here? To wake up one night to a hit squad that will immobilize you and then slowly remove body parts over the course of the next 48 hours? Or to put forth a reasoned viewpoint to a receptive audience in a way that will do some good?
Do you realize the damage your approach causes conservatives and libertarians? Do you realize the danger this poses to yourself? Do you realize your approach undermines your goals anyhow?
I think of morons like Julia Roberts, and her little speech about where she found Republican in the dictionary (between "reptile" and "repulsive"), and I think of all the unfair, irrational comments made by the leftists. And it's easy to see they are not people capable of serious thought. Is this the image you also want?
The issue here is not Mensa vs Free Speech. And what is Free Speech, anyhow? Are you free to yell "fire" in a theater? Are you free to make death threats to people? (Well, I am assuming you don't work for the IRS, in which case you get paid to do that). Any freedom carries with it responsibility. And you, John, are shirking that responsibility when it comes to both forming and expressing your views. Mensa was correct to bar your stuff from their publications. Are you not aware that many Jews are also Mensans? They pay their dues, same as you.
The issue here is respect and decency. Mensa has a duty to its members--who include minors--to keep the Bulletin respectable. Viewpoints are one thing. Character assassination of an entire ethnic group is another. And, regarding the validity/invalidity of your theories, why are there so many poor Jews and why haven't the Jews--if they are as nasty and scheming as you say--done much better for themselves? Because your stated views lack the backing of truth, they are incapable of advancing mankind on any front or of enriching those who read them.
I hope you can take a mature view of my input here, and take stock of things. You must reassess both your views and your approach to expressing them. Otherwise, your life will amount to nothing more than a fart in the wind. And, I hate to see that happen to anybody other than a liberal.
-- Mark L.
-------
Mark: My responses are interleaved into your text and marked with asterisks: *****
----- Original Message ----- From: "Writer (Mark Lamendola)" To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 10:48 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
> John, > > Your position has some fundamental strengths. I would agree that liberals > are generally harmful to civilization. And I would agree that many Jews are > liberals. But, it is profoundly irrational to claim that all Jews are > liberals.
***** I never said that. But, so I have heard, 85-90% are. That's quite a lot.
Or all Italians are Catholics and mobsters. Or all Irish men are > drunkards. > > Your Website takes the view that dissension is normal, healthy, and useful. > In fact, diplomacy accomplishes much more.
***** Diplomacy is just an act of tidying up what power has allocated. Freedom is won, not granted. It may sometimes SEEM granted, but that is only because it would be eventually taken.
You can catch more bees with > honey than with vinegar. > > Rather than attacking Mensa and further alienating yourself, why not > reconsider your approach?
***** I attacked Mensa only in self-defense. I just wanted to do what Mensa was set up to to -- to exchange ideas. To allow an attack to go unanswered is not only to invite future attacks, but to invite attacks on others, and thus on freedom.
I mean, what is your goal, here?
**** To defend myself, to promote free exchange of ideas. Freedom isn't free -- it always includes risks, including those you mention below.
To wake up one > night to a hit squad that will immobilize you and then slowly remove body > parts over the course of the next 48 hours? Or to put forth a reasoned > viewpoint to a receptive audience in a way that will do some good? >
***** Waking people up to censorship constitutes 'some good' in my opinion. Most people think my views are pretty well reasoned - in more that 17,000 visitors, I have never had a single request to accept my posted offer to link any attack on anything I have said.
> Do you realize the damage your approach causes conservatives and > libertarians?
***** What's that? To damage their illusion that they can speak freely?
Do you realize the danger this poses to yourself? Do you > realize your approach undermines your goals anyhow?
***** How's that?
> > I think of morons like Julia Roberts, and her little speech about where she > found Republican in the dictionary (between "reptile" and "repulsive"), and > I think of all the unfair, irrational comments made by the leftists. And > it's easy to see they are not people capable of serious thought. Is this the > image you also want?
****** How do my actions give me an irratonal image? I may express emotion, but that is not 'irrational', jut emotion in the service of logic.
> > The issue here is not Mensa vs Free Speech.
***** The issue is making the world (or a small part of it: Mensa) safe for freely discussing the Jewish Question and other non-pc issues. That, in case you haven't noticed, is free speech.
And what is Free Speech, anyhow? > Are you free to yell "fire" in a theater? Are you free to make death threats > to people? (Well, I am assuming you don't work for the IRS, in which case > you get paid to do that). Any freedom carries with it responsibility. And > you, John, are shirking that responsibility when it comes to both forming > and expressing your views.
**** How is that?
Mensa was correct to bar your stuff from their > publications.
***** They were wrong: It is wrong to allow someone to be attacked without allowing him to respond. It is also wrong for an organization founded for the purpose of exchanging ideas to prevent ideas from being exchanged.
Are you not aware that many Jews are also Mensans? They pay > their dues, same as you.
****** So what?
> > The issue here is respect and decency.
***** Then why didn't Mensa respect me enuf to allow me to respond to a 1 1/2 page attack on my person? What's decent about that?
Mensa has a duty to its members--who > include minors--to keep the Bulletin respectable.
**** What is respectable about their behavior?
Viewpoints are one thing. > Character assassination of an entire ethnic group is another.
***** I did not 'character assassinate an entire group.' I did point out that an unusual number of socially negative events have their locus in the Jewish community. There's a big difference. However, I myself was 'character assassinated' pretty good.
And, regarding > the validity/invalidity of your theories, why are there so many poor Jews > and why haven't the Jews--if they are as nasty and scheming as you say--done > much better for themselves? Because your stated views lack the backing of > truth, they are incapable of advancing mankind on any front or of enriching > those who read them.
***** I invite you to cite any statememts I make which you think are untrue, if you can find any, and I will respond. You haven't yet. Tho you do seem to have misread much into what I say.
> > I hope you can take a mature view of my input here, and take stock of > things. You must reassess both your views and your approach to expressing > them. Otherwise, your life will amount to nothing more than a fart in the > wind. And, I hate to see that happen to anybody other than a liberal. > > -- Mark L. > ---------
Hi, John!
>But, it is profoundly irrational to claim that all Jews are > > liberals. > ***** I never said that. But, so I have heard, 85-90% are.
Well, you are making judgmental and negative statements about Jews collectively.
==
> In fact, diplomacy accomplishes much more.
> ***** Diplomacy is just an act of tidying up what power has allocated. > Freedom is won, not granted. It may sometimes SEEM granted, but that is > only because it would be eventually taken.
Diplomacy and basic respect for others are requirements for functioning in society. Those who see themselves as champions of a jihad are unnecessary casualties.
==== > > I mean, what is your goal, here? > > **** To defend myself, to promote free exchange of ideas. Freedom isn't > free -- it always includes risks, including those you mention below.
Freedom isn't about demonizing others. That is what Mensa put a stop to.
== > > > Do you realize the damage your approach causes conservatives and > > libertarians?
How so, you ask? By marginalizing us so we aren't taken seriously.
John, the basic concept you are missing here is "You can't turn an aircraft carrier on a dime." Should you attempt to do so, you will capsize the ship. This is from a book that analyzed the Kennedy and Eisenhower administrations. Eisenhower understood institutional inertia, and was able to be effective. Kennedy did not understand this principle, and was ineffective (and killed).
You are using a very in-your-face approach that effectively stops people from listening to you.
You are destroying your own freedom by the way you apply it.
Others do not listen when you offend them. They may give you an audience, but because you do not have their respect they will not give your views a fair hearing. Even if Mensa did allow you to "defend yourself," printing your writing would be a waste of paper because those few who would even read it would do so with an unreceptive mind.
This is like sex without foreplay. In your case, the intended recipient view it like rape. The other party simply is not receptive, and does not wish to engage. So, even if you think you are a great lover (or eloquent debater), your attentions meet with complete revulsion rather than any hint of acceptance. So, sure, if you want to overpower someone to show what a great lover (or debater) you are, fine. But, you will enter a lose-lose proposition and any chance of "winning" your "freedom" or anything else is doomed from the start.
==
> > ***** What's that? To damage their illusion that they can speak freely?
Being able to speak freely is meaningless if nobody will freely listen. I can fart freely, too, but few people will want to smell it. So it is with your approach--so laden with offense and "moral stench" in the eyes and ears of the readers, that their only goal is to get away.
== > > Do you realize the danger this poses to yourself? Do you > > realize your approach undermines your goals anyhow? > > ***** How's that? > See above. You can't flog people until their morale improves. You can't beat people into liking you. This is what you are trying to do, and it doesn't work.
==
> ****** How do my actions give me an irratonal image? I may express emotion, > but that is not 'irrational', jut emotion in the service of logic.
Demonizing an entire ethnic group is not rational. Even if it were, when you step on other people's emotional hotbuttons, you have ceased to communicate. They see you as an attacker, an intruder, someone who does not deserve a hearing.
==
> > > > The issue here is not Mensa vs Free Speech. > > ***** The issue is making the world (or a small part of it: Mensa) safe for > freely discussing the Jewish Question and other non-pc issues. That, in > case you haven't noticed, is free speech. > No, that's not free speech. Nor is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or saying slanderous or libelous things. If you are referring to First Amendment rights, those refer to the rights of religious expression, the freedom of the press and the rights of the people to assemble--and to protest the government.
Here is the text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There is nothing in here giving anyone the right to a public forum for the kinds of things you have been saying. Anti-semitism is especially loathesome in light of the Holocaust. Mensa would be remiss in its duties to allow anyone to engage in disparagement of any ethnic group. And, for the Bulletin to be turned into a forum for such non-intellectual bantering would ruin it for nearly every other Mensan. If you want to engage in such foolishness, start your own publication. Or, try to start an Anti-semitism SIG. You may phrase this as "discussing the Jewish question," but that automatically assumes there is something to discuss, and that naturally assumes there's a dark side to the Jews as a people. That's intellectually dishonest, whether you think it is or not.
And what about the freedom of people of Jewish descent to practice their religion? Casting aspersions on them for doing so is a violation of free speech. Far more so than the "freedom" to demonize them.
==
>And you, John, are shirking that responsibility when it comes to both forming > > and expressing your views. > > **** How is that?
You take an offensive stance from the beginning. You aren't seeking intellectual debate, truth, or consensus. You just want to bludgeon others with this anti-Semitic viewpoint, and then challenge them to "debate" it with you. People with good minds aren't going to waste them doing so.
==
> Mensa was correct to bar your stuff from their > > publications. > > ***** They were wrong: It is wrong to allow someone to be attacked without > allowing him to respond. It is also wrong for an organization founded for > the purpose of exchanging ideas to prevent ideas from being exchanged. > If I write a letter saying all kinds of unfounded, derogatory things about you even though I really know nothing about you, then it's OK for me to "exchange ideas" and demand that be printed?
==
> Are you not aware that many Jews are also Mensans? They pay > > their dues, same as you. > > ****** So what?
So, Mensa cannot be your forum for attacking them. They are part of the constituency of the group. One of the reasons they joined was to be free to exchange ideas. If they are attacked when they read the Bulletin or participate in other Mensa functions, then Mensa has a breach of contract with them. Suppose you were a black man, and you read all kinds of letters in Mensa wanting to debate "the rights of niggers." Would you say that is a fine publication? I think you'd not go along with that.
== > > > > The issue here is respect and decency. > > ***** Then why didn't Mensa respect me enuf to allow me to respond to a 1 > 1/2 page attack on my person? What's decent about that? > I don't know all the details, but weren't you the one who started that battle? I would agree they would be wrong to attack you. The correct way to handle it would be to write to you privately and explain such views are not acceptable to the membership. If this is the issue that really grates you, then you have a legitimate beef. Provided your communication to them was private. If, on the other hand, you are contacting Mensa members through information gleaned via your Mensa membership to express these view, then you have abused that relationship and Mensa has a duty and a right to declare an official position that expresses indignation--or even outrage--at this.
==
> Mensa has a duty to its members--who > > include minors--to keep the Bulletin respectable. > > **** What is respectable about their behavior?
I'm talking about the content of the Bulletin. I'm not taking sides with any personalities involved. I don't know Beatty that well, and I'm not discussing his behavior.
==
> Viewpoints are one thing. > > Character assassination of an entire ethnic group is another. > > ***** I did not 'character assassinate an entire group.' I did point out > that an unusual number of socially negative events have their locus in the > Jewish community. There's a big difference. However, I myself was > 'character assassinated' pretty good. > Well, you see, that's innuendo. It's the same as saying something about you like, "I've never seen it proven John is a child molester." Saying that has the same effect on John as saying "John is a child molester." As soon as you start suggesting there might be something wrong with someone else, you may as well have made a bold and thorough accusation. Logically, that's not true. But, in the minds of people it is. Also, keep in mind that a huge number of socially negative events occur outside the Jewish community.
== > > I invite you to cite any statememts I make which you think are untrue, > if you can find any, and I will respond. You haven't yet. Tho you do seem > to have misread much into what I say.
I'm not getting into a debate over your statements. Your views are yours--all I am addressing is the way you present them. It could very well be everything you say is true. Understand that your views are not obvious truths. If you wish to share them with others, you have to go in more gently. I battle with this all the time, and it's not easy. I wish I could get everyone to eat right, for example. Or stop watching TV. But, these are extremely radical concepts in our society. To say too much or to say things too forcefully would simply brand me as a nut and then nobody would listen. No matter how much proof I have. That is really what I am trying to say to you.
Take care, Mark L.
---------
My new responses are interleaved and marked #######
----- Original Message ----- From: "Writer (Mark Lamendola)" > To: "Birdman" <john@thebirdman.org> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 7:14 PM Subject: Re: Mensa vs Free Speech
> Hi, John! > > >But, it is profoundly irrational to claim that all Jews are > > > liberals. > > ***** I never said that. But, so I have heard, 85-90% are. > > Well, you are making judgmental and negative statements about Jews > collectively. > ##### If your statement is intended to be a refutation of mine, it doesn't work.
> == > > > In fact, diplomacy accomplishes much more. > > > ***** Diplomacy is just an act of tidying up what power has allocated. > > Freedom is won, not granted. It may sometimes SEEM granted, but that is > > only because it would be eventually taken. > > Diplomacy and basic respect for others are requirements for functioning in > society. Those who see themselves as champions of a jihad are unnecessary > casualties. > > ##### I don't remember the context, but I believe I took you to mean ambassadorial diplomacy, not good manners. But while I believe in -- and always practice -- good manners, manners themselves will accomplish nothing. They are only a style of behaving, not a strategy. ==== > > > > I mean, what is your goal, here? > > > > **** To defend myself, to promote free exchange of ideas. Freedom isn't > > free -- it always includes risks, including those you mention below. > > Freedom isn't about demonizing others. That is what Mensa put a stop to. >
##### I say my purpose is to promote free exchange of ideas. You seem to reply that free exchange of ideas is unethical if others are criticized severely. This is the agenda that the Jews all over the world have been pushing in order to stamp out free speech. Free speech is offensive speech. And it is also good speech, becuause the important things that need to be said are usually offensive to at lest some people. Truth hurts. But truth is the only road to improvement.
> == > > > > > Do you realize the damage your approach causes conservatives and > > > libertarians? > > How so, you ask? By marginalizing us so we aren't taken seriously. > > John, the basic concept you are missing here is "You can't turn an aircraft > carrier on a dime." Should you attempt to do so, you will capsize the ship. > This is from a book that analyzed the Kennedy and Eisenhower > administrations. Eisenhower understood institutional inertia, and was able > to be effective. Kennedy did not understand this principle, and was > ineffective (and killed). >
###### What you seem to be saying here is that if I only 'go slower', 'not be so extreme', etc, then I will win more people to my cause, not embarrass conservatives and libertarians, etc. That's your opinion, not mine.
> You are using a very in-your-face approach that effectively stops people > from listening to you. > > You are destroying your own freedom by the way you apply it. > > Others do not listen when you offend them.
##### The ugly fact of this PC world is that criticizing Jews in any way immediately brings recriminations. Things are past the point of 'go slow'. No matter HOW slow you go, someone will call you a nasty name. So I don't worry about 'giving offense'. I want to speak to people who are openminded enuf to listen. I figure the others can just die off.
They may give you an audience, > but because you do not have their respect they will not give your views a > fair hearing. Even if Mensa did allow you to "defend yourself," printing > your writing would be a waste of paper because those few who would even read > it would do so with an unreceptive mind.
#### The statistics do not bear you out. Of 800 letters sent, about 200 objected. That leaves 600 fence-sitters or people who agree with me. And that is in notoriously-liberal Mensa. I would say that is prety good. But even if a waste of paper, that does not absolve Mensa from the obligation to allow me to respond.
> > This is like sex without foreplay. In your case, the intended recipient view > it like rape. The other party simply is not receptive, and does not wish to > engage. So, even if you think you are a great lover (or eloquent debater), > your attentions meet with complete revulsion rather than any hint of > acceptance. So, sure, if you want to overpower someone to show what a great > lover (or debater) you are, fine. But, you will enter a lose-lose > proposition and any chance of "winning" your "freedom" or anything else is > doomed from the start. > > == > > > > > ***** What's that? To damage their illusion that they can speak freely? > > Being able to speak freely is meaningless if nobody will freely listen.
##### No one knows in advance whether they will be heard. But of 800, 600 may well have listened.
I > can fart freely, too, but few people will want to smell it. So it is with > your approach--so laden with offense and "moral stench" in the eyes and ears > of the readers, that their only goal is to get away. > > == > > > > Do you realize the danger this poses to yourself? Do you > > > realize your approach undermines your goals anyhow? > > > > ***** How's that? > > > See above. You can't flog people until their morale improves. You can't beat > people into liking you. This is what you are trying to do, and it doesn't > work. >
##### But I can beat people into RESPECTING me. Everyone who has written me gets a letter back, and if they argue, they go up against me. Every one of those people -- 50 to 75 -- knows I can whip their butts at the keyboard. Including you, whether you admit it or not. They may hate me, but they will respect me. And my opinions, even if not agreeing. They will not be able to think of me as stupid or uninformed -- not when I whip their butts.
> == > > > ****** How do my actions give me an irrational image? I may express > emotion, > > but that is not 'irrational', jut emotion in the service of logic. > > Demonizing an entire ethnic group is not rational.
##### I have not 'demonized an entire ethnic group'; rather I have pointed out that a great many socially negative things have their locus in the Jewish community. There is a BIG difference.
Even if it were, when you > step on other people's emotional hotbuttons, you have ceased to communicate. > They see you as an attacker, an intruder, someone who does not deserve a > hearing.
##### The ugly fact is that you cannot change people's beliefs without getting under their skin. You have to break up the old thought patterns. No oyster makes a pearl without a grain of sand; no man thinks without a fire in his belly or a lightning bolt up his ass.
> > == > > > > > > > The issue here is not Mensa vs Free Speech. > > > > ***** The issue is making the world (or a small part of it: Mensa) safe > for > > freely discussing the Jewish Question and other non-pc issues. That, in > > case you haven't noticed, is free speech. > > > No, that's not free speech.
##### You are saying that censoring discussion of Jews and the Jewish Question is not interference with free speech? What language are you speaking? It is NOT analogous to shouting fire in a theatre. You are not speaking so as to hurt people to no good purpose, tho your words may indeed hurt them.
Nor is yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater or > saying slanderous or libelous things. If you are referring to First > Amendment rights, those refer to the rights of religious expression, the > freedom of the press and the rights of the people to assemble--and to > protest the government. > > Here is the text: > > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or > prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, > or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to > petition the government for a redress of grievances." > > There is nothing in here giving anyone the right to a public forum for the > kinds of things you have been saying. Anti-semitism is especially loathesome > in light of the Holocaust.
###### Here you are again saying that speech cannot be allowed if it hurts someone. I refer you to my earlier response to this matter (above).
Mensa would be remiss in its duties to allow > anyone to engage in disparagement of any ethnic group.
#### There is a difference between 'disparagement' and criticism -- the difference between calling someone an SOB and describing some bad thing they have done.
And, for the Bulletin > to be turned into a forum for such non-intellectual bantering would ruin it > for nearly every other Mensan. If you want to engage in such foolishness, > start your own publication. Or, try to start an Anti-semitism SIG. You may > phrase this as "discussing the Jewish question," but that automatically > assumes there is something to discuss, and that naturally assumes there's a > dark side to the Jews as a people.
###### This is quite unbelievable: You are saying that there is nothing bad about Jews. But you are probably quite comfortable saying that whites are 'racist'. BTW, tell me, do you think that Israeli torture is off-limits?
That's intellectually dishonest, whether > you think it is or not. > > And what about the freedom of people of Jewish decent to practice their > religion? Casting aspersions on them for doing so is a violation of free > speech.
##### Not sure what you mean. I don't care who worships what, tho I do note that the Talmud is extremely antigentile, ie, 'racist'.
Far more so than the "freedom" to demonize them. > > == > > >And you, John, are shirking that responsibility when it comes to both > forming > > > and expressing your views. > > > > **** How is that? > > You take an offensive stance from the beginning. You aren't seeking > intellectual debate, truth, or consensus.
##### Really? How do your presume to know my motives? Do you read minds?
You just want to bludgeon others > with this anti-Semitic viewpoint, and then challenge them to "debate" it > with you. People with good minds aren't going to waste them doing so.
###### 50-75 Mensans have done so. You are refuted. > > == > > > Mensa was correct to bar your stuff from their > > > publications. > > > > ***** They were wrong: It is wrong to allow someone to be attacked without > > allowing him to respond. It is also wrong for an organization founded for > > the purpose of exchanging ideas to prevent ideas from being exchanged. > > > If I write a letter saying all kinds of unfounded, derogatory things about > you even though I really know nothing about you, then it's OK for me to > "exchange ideas" and demand that be printed?
####### If they are unfounded, it is not OK. What I say is well documented on my website -- try reading it sometime. There are lots of references too. > > == > > > Are you not aware that many Jews are also Mensans? They pay > > > their dues, same as you. > > > > ****** So what? > > So, Mensa cannot be your forum for attacking them. They are part of the > constituency of the group.
#### In other words, it's not OK to attack (criticize?) them, but it's OK to attack me, is that it? How do you get that one?
One of the reasons they joined was to be free to > exchange ideas.
##### As I said before, truth hurts. Idea exchange is truth exchange, presumably. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Free speech is offensive speech.
If they are attacked when they read the Bulletin or > participate in other Mensa functions, then Mensa has a breach of contract > with them. Suppose you were a black man, and you read all kinds of letters > in Mensa wanting to debate "the rights of niggers." Would you say that is a > fine publication? I think you'd not go along with that.
##### It is my experience that Blacks recognize their own deficiencies, tho for political reasons they won't publicly acknowledge them. As a black, I would have no objection to discussion of black deficiencies, just as white, I have no problem with discussion of white deficiencies -- of which there are plenty. But I might well not SUBSCRIBE to a mag that discussed such deficiencies. > > == > > > > > > The issue here is respect and decency. > > > > ***** Then why didn't Mensa respect me enuf to allow me to respond to a 1 > > 1/2 page attack on my person? What's decent about that? > > > I don't know all the details, but weren't you the one who started that > battle? I would agree they would be wrong to attack you. The correct way to > handle it would be to write to you privately and explain such views are not > acceptable to the membership. If this is the issue that really grates you, > then you have a legitimate beef.
***** The issue is that I was given an ad hominem assault. The issues I raised were not discussed at all. If it were merely a matter of the Bulletin allowing an attack on my position on the issues, that might not have been so bad -- tho it would have still been wrong not to allow me to respond. It was also wrong by being a violation of Mensa's purpose of free exchange of ideas.
Provided your communication to them was > private. If, on the other hand, you are contacting Mensa members through > information gleaned via your Mensa membership to express these view, then > you have abused that relationship and Mensa has a duty and a right to > declare an official position that expresses indignation--or even outrage--at > this. > > ####### Your point escapes me. == > > > Mensa has a duty to its members--who > > > include minors--to keep the Bulletin respectable. > > > > **** What is respectable about their behavior? > > I'm talking about the content of the Bulletin. I'm not taking sides with any > personalities involved. I don't know Beatty that well, and I'm not > discussing his behavior. > > == ###### There is no respectability unless there is respect for truth and ethics. The behavior of the Bulletin people showed they respect neither.
> > > Viewpoints are one thing. > > > Character assassination of an entire ethnic group is another. > > > > ***** I did not 'character assassinate an entire group.' I did point out > > that an unusual number of socially negative events have their locus in the > > Jewish community. There's a big difference. However, I myself was > > 'character assassinated' pretty good. > > > Well, you see, that's innuendo. It's the same as saying something about you > like, "I've never seen it proven John is a child molester." Saying that has > the same effect on John as saying "John is a child molester." As soon as you > start suggesting there might be something wrong with someone else, you may > as well have made a bold and thorough accusation. Logically, that's not > true. But, in the minds of people it is.
##### It may very well be that Jews, as a community, are bad for gentiles. That is one possibility. Obviously you don't want to entertain that possibility, but it nonetheless exists. And more than just exists; for Western civ may very well crash on the rocks Judah has set up for it, as I explain on my website. That may not be, but it at minimum is an issue of vital importance and surely worth discussing.
Also, keep in mind that a huge > number of socially negative events occur outside the Jewish community. > > == > > > > I invite you to cite any statememts I make which you think are untrue, > > if you can find any, and I will respond. You haven't yet. Tho you do > seem > > to have misread much into what I say. > > I'm not getting into a debate over your statements. Your views are > yours--all I am addressing is the way you present them. It could very well > be everything you say is true.
###### Your objection seems to be to my style rather than to my substance. But again, the problem is that anytime anyone dares to mention the slightest criticism of Jews, it immediately sets off a wave of criticism ('Antisemite' etc,) which effectively stops discussion. Hence THERE IS NO STYLE WHICH WILL SATISFY POLITICAL CORRECTNESS (or you, I assume).
Understand that your views are not obvious > truths. If you wish to share them with others, you have to go in more > gently. I battle with this all the time, and it's not easy. I wish I could > get everyone to eat right, for example. Or stop watching TV. But, these are > extremely radical concepts in our society. To say too much or to say things > too forcefully would simply brand me as a nut and then nobody would listen. > No matter how much proof I have. That is really what I am trying to say to > you. > > Take care, > Mark L.
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *