Conference back40::soapbox

From: [email protected] (Ted Werntz)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Name Calling (was Re: The War with Mexico)
Message-ID: <1994Dec8.002718.7860@eisner>
Date: 8 Dec 94 00:27:17 -0500
Organization: DECUServe
Lines: 605

Subject: Re: Name Calling (was Re: The War with Mexico)

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
       (Joseph Dzikiewicz) writes:

     (Insults and name-calling deleted)
 
> In article <1994Dec2.225526.7779@eisner>,
> Ted Werntz <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>
     (more insults and more name-calling again deleted)

>>> beyond the point when it became well-established that blacks and
>>> Muslims shared responsibility for the Atlantic slave-trade.

   Neither blacks nor Muslims owned or operated any of the ocean 
   going horrors that killed millions of Africans.  To say that they 
   then shared responsibility for the Atlantic slave-trade is 
   appalling.  Your position is like saying that Chaim Mordecai 
   Rumkowski and his Jewish Police "shared responsibility" for the 
   horrors of Hitler since they arrested Jews and sent them to camps 
   under Hitler's orders.  To maintain either position shows a 
   depraved indifference to simple decency.  What is important
   is that Africans and Jews be accorded the same treatment, and
   this you fail to do.

>> Sinking to Name Calling Joe indicates you are intellectually 
>> bankrupt.  We can see this more clearly by noting that you don't 
>> even mention any Jewish involvement in the Atlantic slave-trade.  
>> Clearly you want Jewish slave traders to just disappear.  
> 
> Ted, I have never denied that there were Jews involved in the Atlantic
> slave trade.  But if it pleases you, then, for the record:
> 
>       THERE WERE JEWS INVOLVED IN THE ATLANTIC SLAVE TRADE.

Read you own writings.  Your statements are always about blacks and 
Muslim involvement in the slave-trade, with never a word about Jews.  
You object to mentioning Jews and slave trading but you then turn 
around and constantly bring up Africans and Muslims and slave-
trading.  If you wanted to mention nobody then at least you are 
treating all the same.  But no, you want to mention Africans and 
Muslims, but not mention Jews.  No African and no Muslim has ever 
been accused of sailing a single slave ship through the Middle 
Passage that has been packed with Jews.  On the other hand, Jews did 
own and operate slave-ships that they packed with Africans.  
Christians did the same thing, but there is no problem mentioning 
them. The only problem comes with mentioning Jewish slave-traders 
since Jews want to deny the evil that Jews have done to Africans.  

> My argument on this particular issue has always been that it makes
> no sense to assign collective responsibility for the slave trade to
> Jews because of the actions of individual Jews in participating in
> that trade.

That is a phoney issue.  Today's New York Times, Dec 7, 1994, page C20 
has a television review with picture and a title saying 

    "French Role in Sending Jews to Death."  

I cannot imagine you objecting to mentioning French in this manner.
But you would turn vicious if someone were to have a picture
of an African group in chains with a title saying

     "Jewish Role in Sending Africans to Death."  

This is very wrong and evil.  There is no Jewish right to kill 
Africans and then sweep the result under the rug and refuse to 
mention it under penalty of being called nasty names and insulted.
Of course all know that this is only the first step, and we can
guess what comes next.

Your frequent use of the word "anti-Semitism" also indicates a 
problem.  You have not yet used a word that talks about the harm done 
to Africans.  Believe it or not this is a discussion about slavery 
and yet you only mention African and Muslim involvement in the slave 
trade.  One might almost think that Africans and Muslims ganged up on 
the poor Jews and sold them into slavery the way you talk.  You have 
shown absolutely no compassion for the sufferings of Africans.  All 
that comes through in this whole thread is a overwhelming desire to 
shield Jews from any of the responsibility for the African slave-
trade.  This is ethically very wrong.

> In an example of this, I have given references that have shown that 
> as much as 50% of the supply of blacks provided as slaves were in 
> fact provided by other blacks.  I do not think that it makes any 
> sense to blame blacks for the slave trade.  Likewise, I do not think 
> it makes any sense to blame Jews for the slave trade.  (Especially 
> as, given the figures presented in this and related threads, blacks 
> had a much greater share of the procuring of slaves then Jews had in 
> the trading of such slaves.) 

What you have done is very sick.  Anyone who would give references 
like you have that would show that 100% of the Jews gathered for 
Hitler from the Lodz ghetto were gathered by Jewish authorities under 
the direction of Chaim Mordecai Rumkowski would be judged a sick 
person.  Yet you do this to blacks, which shows how sick is your 
mind.  

According to your logic it makes no sense to blame anyone for 
anything and I am sure you don't believe this.  What you want is to 
shield Jews from any blame, while everyone else is open to blame.  
This too is very sick.  

The way in which you mention Africans and Jews here is false and very 
hurtful to blacks.  Pitcavage claimed that blacks got "filthy rich" 
from the slave trade and I asked him how rich, mentioning the 130 
ships of Aaron Lopez.  I have yet to see an answer from him.  

In major ghettos like the Lodz ghetto, 100% of the Jews where turned 
over by the Jewish government of Chaim Mordecai Rumkowski and his 
Jewish police, all of whom were Jews.  By my standards, both Jews and 
Africans were working under duress.  I respect a policy that treats 
both Jews and Africans equally.  This you refuse to do.  You have 
never once mentioned that Jews stuffed Africans into slave ships 
while Africans never stuffed Jews into slave-ships.  Africans who 
have said this get viciously attacked, and I would never expect you 
to protest these attacks, since the attackers are Jews who you defend
regardless of what they do.  

The problem here is that you perceive Jews to have more rights than do 
Africans, and I strenuously object.  You will have to do worse than 
calling me names and insulting me verbally to get me to sell out 
these principles.  I believe that all people should be judged by a 
single standard, and I am thoroughly against special rights for any
people, including Jews.

> I do notice that you tend to wander freely across topic areas whenever
> anyone presents research challenging your statements.  

You have presented no research since if you had you would not rely so 
heavily on insults and name-calling.  

The slave trade that fed North America was a triangular trade, 
typically based on the region around Elmina in West Africa; the West 
Indies such as Jamaica and the Barbadoes and then finally Newport, 
Rhode Island.  To cover this amount of territory requires an ability 
to think about three locations at once, and at the same time realize 
that there were changes over time. To grasp what happened requires 
mental work, since it is not simple.  This is what you are objecting 
to.  What you want is something very simple like 
   "Jews are Great, Great, Great. Rah, Rah, Rah."   
By demanding simplicity you avoid seriously discussing the slave-trade.  
              
You dragged in Muslims who played no appreciable role, which is the
"wandering" that you did to take the discussion away from the harm 
done to Africans.  Your purpose has been to obscure the nature of the 
slave trading route so that it becomes harder to see and understand.  

> In particular,
> when I quoted statements re black involvement in the slave trade, you
> brought up the actions taken in the Americas against natives and
> also actions taken in the Belgium Congo over 50 years after the
> slave trade was over.

Your statements about black involvement in the slave trade are phoney 
since you and Pitcavage have refused to discuss the involvement of the 
Jewish government of Chaim Mordecai Rumkowski in arresting Jews and 
handing them over to Hitler.  I see both involvements to be the same 
"kind" since both show the actions of groups under duress.  
You don't want to discuss the similarities since you want to absolve
Jews of responsibility for the Atlantic slave trade by not talking
about them at all.

My evidence from the Belgium Congo was from Mark Twain, who we all 
know about and on whom we can form our own judgement.  Your 
"evidence" was based on people who I don't think anyone heard of or
knew anything about, nor did you seem to know anything about them.
And yet you asked that their "word" be accepted as evidence.
This is as phoney as a three dollar bill.

Europeans from Spain and Portugal were enslaving BOTH Africans and 
Indians for 200 years.  During that period these countries were very 
fearful of any Islamic influence on Africans who might be 
inadvertantly transported to America. The fear was that Africans 
familiar with Muslim slavery would be so horrified about what was 
being done to them in the Americas, that they would rebel in a Muslim 
led revolt, and then combine with the Indians.  

The Spanish and Portuguesse were so obsessed with keeping out any 
possible Muslim influence that they treated Africans and Indians very 
differently in terms of religion.  They went to great efforts to 
convert the Indians, and gave them the status of neophyte in the 
Faith. This implied that they felt that the Indians had not yet been 
exposed to hated Islamic ideas, while the Africans were suspect since 
who could be sure that Muslims had not yet reached them somehow in 
Africa.  It was not believed that Muslims had reached America yet, so 
Indians were considered free of Islamic influence.  

The possible Muslim influence on Africans was of constant concern,  
which is why they did not have the same status in the church.  The 
result was that there were many priests sent to the West Indies and 
the Americas to work with the Indians.  Since priests were literate 
and could write, some of them left first hand descriptions of what 
they saw.  The Church in the Indian village became ubiquitous.

The Africans on the other hand were not granted the status 
of neophyte of the Faith and therefore there were very few priests 
sent to Africa making it that much more difficult to find out what 
was done to the Africans.  This is why I described what has been 
written in the Americas since there were priests who were available 
who described the mode of operation.  Of course you don't want to see 
any evidence since your mind is closed.  What I have just written is 
not meant for you but for others who might read this and have an open 
mind.  I gave you plenty of rope which you took and hanged yourself 
revealing your true colors.  This is why you are so persistant with 
your insults and name-calling.  

In addition, we all know how ship's captains filled out their crews, 
and that was by impressment, meaning they just kidnapped needed crew 
members.  They did not go to their nearest Muslim to get the crew, 
but instead they got a gang from their ship and grabbed the nearest 
white sailor they could find.  Same technique was used in Africa, 
except Africans were grabbed.  Put the crew into the ship's boat, 
send them out and they come back with kidnapped Africans.  

Had there been Muslim slave-traders, they would have to have had to 
"warehouse" their human merchandize until the next slave-ship came 
in.  The cost of food for the slaves would then eat into profits.  
Such a costly system would be undercut by one that either grabbed 
Africans when they were wanted for newly arrived slave ships, or even 
better, one that "taxed" local villages to supply slaves when 
desired.  Roads and other construction projects were often manned by 
variations on this "taxation" scheme.  

As I earlier said there was a Muslim slave trade, but it went in the 
other direction and away from Elmina and the Slave coast.  

Just like some of the slave traders from Christian Spain and 
Christian Portugal were Jews, so some of the slave traders from 
Muslim countries also were Jews.  It is dishonest to state that slave 
traders from a Muslim country or Christian country have to be either 
Muslims or Christians.  Since there were no Jewish countries at the 
time this eliminates or minimizes Jewish slave-traders which is why 
this dishonesty is used.  

Since you claim to be such an expert on slave-trading from Muslim 
lands, why don't you explain the involvement of Jewish slave-trading 
in these Muslim lands?  And since you have written so much about 
your expertize on the Atlantic slave trade, tell us something about 
Recife and Pernambuco.  Diego Fernandez has been called "the greatest 
expert in sugar plantations" which is what fueled the initial demand 
for slaves, so tell us about him and where did he help set up these 
sugar plantations?  Then tell us why being sent to the West Indies was
such a horror for Africans.  While you are showing the rest of the 
group what you know about the slave trade, tell them about slavery 
and the French West Indies and the role of David Gradis.  Discuss who
was bigger, David Gradis or Aaron Lopez. Then go on and talk about 
slavery and the British West Indies, starting with Jamaica, the 
Barbadoes, Curacao and Surinan.  Explain how this related to bringing 
slave trading to North America.  
 
> You did not present any evidence that there
> was no black involvement: nor did you present any evidence that
> the blacks involved were coerced by anything stronger then the prospect
> of economic gains for selling other blacks into slavery.

I reason by analogy, and see the condition of the blacks to be the 
same as the position of the Jewish governments in Poland that were
lead by people such as Chaim Mordecai Rumkowski who arrested Jews and 
handed them over to the Gestapo for shipment to various death camps.  
I see both African collaborators and Jewish collaborators as being 
victims.  I see both in the same light because I see both as being 
humans with the same rights.  You obviously don't, which is why you 
and Pitcavage have repeatedly disregarded my pointed comments about 
Rumkowski.  While I see both as being victims, I note that there is 
much evidence that Rumkowski and his Jewish supporters arrested other 
Jews for the Gestapo for the "prospect of economic gains" as you put 
it.  Your unwillingness to accord both Jews and Africans the same 
historical courtesy and the same historical dignity underlines your 
whole approach to this issue.  

> Further, re Jewish involvement in the slave trade, I found Mark P's
> post of a few weeks back on the issue to be the most enlightening
> post in this thread.  

I have seen nothing by Pitcavage that would be "enlightening" nor 
have I seen anything about Providence.  If I have missed anything
of any value, then I would appreciate getting a copy.  On the 
other hand if it is typical Pitcavage screed, then forget it.

> ... In it, he sited the specific records of
> slave trading vessels out of Providence, RI, (as you have repeatedly
> pointed out, a center of slave trading). 

I have repeatedly pointed out that Newport, RI was the center of 
slave trading in North America.  Newport is a different city from 
Providence and was at that time much bigger.  So don't misquote and
say that I "have repeatedly pointed out" anything about slave-trading
n Providence since I have not mentioned Providence prior to this 
posting.  

Jewish slave-traders left Newport and closed down the Jewish Synagogue 
in 1791.  They left Newport for places like New York, Savannah and 
Charleston while others went to Jamaica and elsewhere in the West 
Indies.  Once this happened Newport was no longer the slave-trading 
capital of North America.  

Like you, Pitcavage is another name-caller, and the last posting I 
saw from him was the preposterous claim that Timbuctoo was the center 
of Muslim slave trading that supplied the Atlantic slave trade.  I 
requested an explanation of how he expected the Muslims to get slaves 
from Timbuctoo down to the Guinea coast and I have failed to see any 
reply from him.  My plan was to let also him talk and hang himself.  

As far as Timbuctoo is concerned, being ignorant about what he is 
talking about, Pitcavage probably made an error in assuming that it 
is easy to get by land from Northwest Africa to West Africa where the 
Slave Coast or Guinea Coast (now Ghana) is located.  To the 
uninformed it might seem as if it should be easy to get from "North-
West Africa" to "West Africa" but it wasn't.  Or he may have looked 
at a map and seen that Timbuctoo is on the upper Niger River, which 
flows down to the Bay of Guinea on the middle of the Slave Coast.  
This could have lead him to incorrectly assume that it would be easy 
to follow the Niger River from Timbuctoo to the Slave Coast.  

Near the end of the slave trading era there were well publicized 
European expeditions that tried to establish where the Niger River 
went to after it left the Timbuctoo region.  There were theories that 
it went to three different places; Lake Chad, the Congo River and the 
Slave Coast, but no one then knew.  It wasn't just a problem of the 
huge Bussa rapids on the river.  Possibly the best known of these 
expeditions was the one led by Mingo Park, around 1800.  With a 
company of British soldiers, he came 1000 miles down the Niger River, 
passed Timbuctoo, and got as far as the Bussa rapids.  Here he was 
killed by Africans who thought he was a Muslim slave trader.  Muslims 
would raid into that area, but once they got Africans, they would go 
back the opposite way from the Slave Coast as I said much earlier.  
This story is told in many books, and anyone who wants a good laugh 
at Pitcavage should read about Mungo Park and Timbuctoo.  

> Those records clearly showed
> that the vast majority of slave trading was done on ships owned by
> non-Jews.  Further, the records showed that the majority of slave
> trades done by vessels owned by Jews were in fact done on vessels
> owned by one man, Aaron Lopez.  

This is very evil.  You are claiming that it is alright for
a Jew who is not the biggest slave-trader around to buy and
kill as many Africans as he can and that you will make up such
an excuse as you just have to shield him from justice.

Out of ignorance you are mis-representing the data, as can be 
expected from the general level of your posts on this topic.  The 
records are very incomplete, which means that nothing about a 
majority can be clearly shown.  But even worse is your attempt
here to claim that Jews had a right to kill Africans as long as
they were not the biggest killer.

For instance, the very incomplete records available show that Moses 
Seixas owned a part share of the Brig Eagle which started one slave 
run with 109 slaves and reached Charleston with 97 slaves still
alive.  Because the records are far from complete, this may only be 
the tip of the iceburg for the slave-trading involvement of Moses 
Seixas.  However these documents indicate that 12 Africans died while 
being forcibly transported against their will on a ship that Moses 
Seixas owned in part.  I want the charge of murder placed against the 
murderers.  I don't want to see excuses made for Moses Seixas because 
he is Jewish or because he "only" owned in this case a part of a slave 
ship.  The issue is that there has never been a Jewish right to kill 
Africans and you would have do to massive killings in order to stuff
such a right down the throat of Americans.

Nor are you entitled to excuse Moses Seixas because he was the last 
president of the Yeshurat Yisrael Synagogue of Newport.  Crying 
"anti-semite" at someone who denounces Moses Seixas also won't do.  
Neither do I want to see excuses made for him because his brother 
Benjamin Seixas was a founder of the New York Stock Exchange.  I do 
want to establish the principle that it wrong to kill Africans.  
Period. No argument. No exceptions. In its final form the principle 
should be that it is wrong for anyone to kill Africans, since 
Africans are people like anyone else.  

On top of this you trivialize.  Aaron Lopez was extremely important 
in Newport and was not only the wealthiest Jewish slave trader in 
Newport but also the wealthiest slave trader among all people of all 
religions.  But Jacob Rodriquez Rivera had a major interest in slave-
trading and owned about as many slave ships as did Aaron Lopez.  
Possibly Pitcavage incorrectly assumed that Rivera was Spanish and not 
Jewish since Pitcavage can not do history.  Both of you should stick 
to repeated name calling and insults which at least you can handle.  

The slave-trade that extended to Newport was part of a much larger 
slave trade based on supplying Brazil and the West Indies.  The 
Jewish involvement in the overall slave trade was very important.  

> I certainly do not think that it makes
> sense to blame an entire race based on the actions of a single man.

No one is blaming an entire race, but trying to trivialize the 
horrors committed on Africans by talking about a single Jewish man is evil,
especially when many more Jews than a single Jew were involved.
The insult to honesty and truth is also evil.

> If you responded at all to Mark's informative post, it never reached
> my site.

I have seen postings from Pitcavage that are insulting and based on
name calling just like your postings.  I have seen nothing that could
be described as informative.  If such a posting exists I would 
appreciate it if someone would forward it to me, even if it only
appears to be informative.

>> Checking through the correspondance and records of the Jewish 
>> slave traders covered in these four volumes, I found not a single 
>> mention of either African or Muslim involvement in the Atlantic 
>> Slave Trade.  Joe's amusing theory would then suggest that these 
>> Jewish slave-traders went out of their way to cover up any 
>> involvement of Muslims or Blacks in the Atlantic Slave Trade.  But 
>> maybe I missed a key document that lays it all bare.  If so,
>> I have given the cite, and wish anyone who wants to look the
>> best of luck.
> 
> Ted, you have consistently misunderstood or misrepresented the point
> on black and Muslim involvement in the slave trade.  The slaves were
> not born on the slaving vessels.  They had to come from somewhere.
> And frequently, as demonstrated with several references in this
> forum, they came from black and Muslim wholesalers who frequently
> cleared out whole villages to procure slaves to sell to Europeans
> on the coast.

Joe you are the one who has consistently "misunderstood or 
misrepresented" important points.  The slave trade in Africans from 
West Africa, started just about the time Portugal built their 
Fortress at Elmina.  Very early the Portuguese and then the Spanish 
realized the huge dangers of having any kidnapped slaves with Muslim 
ideas in their heads since they blamed slave-uprisings on these 
Muslim ideas.  The fear was that since Muslim slavery was less 
horrible, then Africans exposed to it would resent the horrors of 
American slavery, and would rebel against them.  Muslim slavery also 
did not have the horrors of the Middle Passage, and it was feared 
that this would also fuel possible Islamic uprisings.  Since there 
were also ship-board uprising that were greatly feared by the slave-
traders, great care was taken to eliminate any possible source of 
encouragement for these uprisings, and the easiest thing to do was to 
guard against any possible Muslim influence on any slave.  

The result was a ban on allowing any slaves into the West Indias or 
the Americas that had any possible connection with Muslim slave 
traders.  Both Portugal and Spain, were vigorously anti-Muslim, and 
saw themselves in a major armed confrontation with Muslims world 
wide, from the gates of Vienna through Spain and northern Africa.
Just like Jews were banned from Spain and Portugal, so were Muslims.  
Spain and Portugal saw the conflict with the Muslims as being part of 
a "holy war" and so they were likely to see a slave-uprising as yet 
another episode in that war.  Everyone knew that there was a big 
difference between slavery as practiced by the Muslims, and the 
slavery that was introduced in the Americas, first in Brazil and then 
the West Indies.  The Africans of course opposed opposed both kinds 
of slavery, but the Muslim form of slavery was a "lesser evil' and it 
was feared that the "greater evil" would fuel slave uprisings when
the slaves finally realized they had been sold into a "greater evil."

>> As for the earlier "conversation" between Joe and myself, it was 
>> clear then that Joe would go to great efforts to avoid 
>> discussing Jewish slave-traders.  He desperately wanted them to 
>> disappear and not be discussed. so he did not respond once
>> to any of my points about Jewish slave traders, and instead he 
>> began to sound like a broken record trying to drag in 
>> Africans and Muslims with the flimsiest of evidence.  
> 
> Again, see the above.  I do point out, however, that ALL of the 
> evidence presented in this and related threads on the source of
> slaves has made it clear that there was a substantial black
> presence in the slave gatherers.  Again, if Ted has presented ANY
> evidence as to how those slaves were gathered, the post has failed
> to reach my site.

Again you use one standard for blacks and find a "substantial black 
presence in the slave gatherers" while you avoid discussing the 
rounding up of Jews for Hitler where you could have found an even 
more substantial Jewish presence in the Jew-gatherers.  The reason it 
was more substantial was that when there were Jewish governments 
working with the Nazi's, like that of Chaim Mordecai Rumkowski's in 
Lodz, then all the Jews who were "gathered" for Hitler were 
"gathered" by that Jewish government.  I have suggested that both 
Jews and Africans were working under duress and I have wanted to 
treat them equally.  You and Pitcavage have wanted to use different 
standards for Jews and Africans, and have refused to see them having
a common humanity.

I have offered first hand accounts of how the Indians were treated 
and that both Indians and Africans were mistreated by the same 
people.  I have explained why the priests who are the best source of 
information on this were involved with the Indians to a much greater 
extent than they were involved with the Africans which explains why 
the sources on the Indians will offer more information that the 
sources on the Africans, if you want the information.  You have 
rejected the information since it doesn't substantiate the 
discredited theory you are trying to maintain.  All that you
succeed in doing though is to make a fool out of yourself.

   (more name calling and insults deleted)

> In particular, whenever Bob Camarow posts on just about
> any subject, Ted finds it necessary to attack Jews.  (Which is
> unfortunate, as Bob frequently has good things to say - I find it
> unfortunate that Bob's valuable posts are lost in Ted's foaming-at-the-
> mouth.)  The most recent case of this was the post on the start
> of the Mexican war, which Ted apparently believes was a just war
> because it freed some Indians from the yolk of a Jewish-inspired
> Mexican conspiracy.

Lets look at those "good things to say" that Joe D claims Bob
"frequently" says.

He told a hateful story about the Koran, which is the holy book
of the Muslim religion.  Granted that you and Pitcavage and others
are hateful towards Muslims, but still it is a religion, and I was 
taught at an early age that under no circumstances should one ever 
hold up another religion to ridicule, or joke about it, or in any way 
show it disrespect.  Bob Comarow thinks differently, and you commend 
him for his "good things to say."  I also notice that at the time 
there wasn't a single protest other than mine, about Bob's 
hate-mongering against the Koran.  

Bob Comarow told us about his gr-grand-father who was killed by a 
Polish mob for being Jewish, and I publicly said I commisserate with 
his loss.  He then disparages the death of U.S. soldiers with his 
false and disparaging comment that all that was involved was that 
some American body was discovered.  I have known Comarow for many 
years and have seen him turn into a vicious anti-Christian hatemonger 
which is why he blatantly disparages the death of U.S. soldiers.  
Obviously the U.S. soldier was a Christian, or to use Kolker's 
derogatory term, he was a "goyim."  Again, other than some wimpy 
question about the source of this misinformation, there was no 
challenge to Bob's disparagement against U.S. casualties.
Calling these comments "good things to say" only encourages continue 
to continue, but this is clearly the intent.  I personally deplore 
this type of behavior, and it is not just because I have lost as many 
family as I have in the armed service of the United States.  

I once foolishly thought of Comarow as a friend, and I thought that 
one thing we had in common is that both our families had come here to 
seek religious freedom, and that both our families had suffered 
deaths for their religion before coming here.  It is for this reason 
that I am grateful to both the Pilgrims and the Virginians for 
pioneering in the concept of religious freedom.  When I saw Comarow 
falsely accuse the Pilgrims of murdering Indians, I knew that his way 
of thanking the Pilgrims for providing a sanctuary was evil.  Of 
course one notes that the Pilgrims are Christians, which makes this 
all right for Comarow to do.  I guess this must be one of the posts 
that Joe found so valuable.  Joe finds that Bob "frequently has good 
things to say."  He has said little and I have covered most so Joe is 
endorsing most of what Bob has said.  Rabbi Raphall must be proud of 
both of you, since you both are such good students of his 
hatemongering following his teaching in his 1860 sermon on the Bible 
View of Slavery.  With Rabbi Raphall's vicious 1860 attack on Arabs, 
he would just love Comarow's offensive comment about the Koran as 
well as Joe and Pitcavage's repeated sorry attempts to blame the 
Muslims for the Atlantic Slave Trade.  

As for the Pilgrims, I had been discussing Comarow's position with 
him for months vie e-mail before he invited me to join this group.
Shortly afterwards he made his public hatemongering attack on the 
Pilgrims in a clear attempt to flaunt Jewish power to me.  He must
have known that the inner clique of this group was Jewish oriented
and that it would support him blindly on any attack he would make
on Muslim or Christian.  I suspect this is what is behing the
attacks on Maury and most likely Comarow knew about the vicious
attacks on Maury, which Maury never seems to understand, and felt
that he could show me raw Jewish power and that I guess his thoughts
were that I would be impressed.  I have on the other hand learned
an awful lot from this whole exercise.

Finally, before I joined this group, I had thought of Comarow as a 
friend, and so I told him just before D-Day about my aunt who decided 
to use her nursing skills and volunteer to help her brothers who had 
volunteered to fight Hitler.  At that time I was proud that she had 
often told me that they did this to help save the Jews of Europe.  
However Comarow insulted the memory of my Aunt by saying that she 
lied and did not enlist to help save the Jews of Europe.  He even 
started pushing some weird book that he mentioned on this newsgroup 
which I understood from him had some sick ideas on other things that 
he claims should have been done to help, that would have cost even 
more Christian lives without any special sacrifices on the part of 
U. S. Jews.  

I know Comarow well enough to know that it is impossible to reach him 
by discussing the abstract rights of human beings.  He only 
understands points if Jews are used as the example since his whole 
world view is based on his own decision to "defend Jews" even when 
they deserve no defense.

> Ted, if you really want a discussion on Jewish presence in the
> Atlantic slave trade, then add something new to the conversation.
> Respond in detail to Mark's post.  Add new information.  But if
> you continuously repeat the same stuff over and over, don't be
> surprised if most people lose interest.

Send me his post and I will try to respond.  I've repeatedly 
mentioned material from both the Encyclopedia Judaica and the Jewish 
Encyclopedia, which you have never responded to.  It is clear that no 
matter what I say you will dismiss it, since you have shown no 
serious interest in the subject of slave-trading.  Your whole 
repeated ludicrous claims about Muslim involvement in the Atlantic 
slave trade proves this.  You have also not once addressed the basic 
idea of who has the right to kill and enslave Africans and if Jews 
are to be held to the same standards as anyone else.  

   (to be continued)

Ted Werntz
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Bob Comarow)
Newsgroups: alt.war.civil.usa
Subject: Re: Mexico and ACW (was Re: KKK)
Message-ID: <1995Jan16.231211.8725@eisner>
Date: 16 Jan 95 23:12:11 -0500
References: <1995Jan16.214553.8717@eisner>
Organization: DECUServe
Lines: 60

In article <1995Jan16.214553.8717@eisner>, [email protected] (Ted Werntz) writes:
> 
> 
much slander and other personal attacks ignored...
>                             

> 
> Bob Comarow at times "plays expert" about Indians on this newsgroup, 
> but one can be sure that Bob will never talk about the heavy Jewish 
> involvement in the destruction of Aztec Indian Civilization.  To 
> limit ones reading to what Bob will write about Indians is to become 
> dependent on Bob's one-sided, distorted views, and you will get as 
> accurate an understanding of the destruction of great Indian 
> civilizations as if you relied on the writings of Hitler to learn 
> about European Jewry in the Hitler era.  
> 
> What Bob refuses to accept is that victims are entitled to tell 
> their own story without being controlled by their victimizers.  
> 

  Gee, I guess that's why I posted the name, address and a
  phone number for Indian Country Today, the largest Native
  American owned and independent Native American publication
  in the world.   




> Bob furthermore refuses to admit that like many other peoples, 
> Jews have been at times victims, and at other times they have 
> been victimizers, especially of Africans and American Indians.  
> Bob, like others, wants a false history in which Jews are always
> victims, and never victimizers.
> 

    Ted, then why was I the one who first posted Lopez's name
  on this list?

> Bob refuses to allow the Africans and American Indians who have 
> been victimized by Jews to have their own voice and explain their 
> own victimization.  Instead he wants Jews to be able to control 
> the history of Africans and American Indians, so that the Jewish 
> victimizer can continue to victimize their victims by control of 
> the history of that victimization.  
> 

   See above.  Tim Giago, owner and editor of "Indian Country 
  Today" I'm sure would be pleased to learn that he has been
  controlled his whole life by Evil Jews.

> This is evil.
        
> Ted Werntz
> [email protected]

  Ted, I hope you feel better.

  Bob
    [email protected]

Now, the question is:

	Should an Internet provider such as DECUServe
	take any action against Ted Werntz?

/john

Who are these people and why should I care?  I didn't read all the postings
because it seems like an argument between 2 people over who did what.

Bob

    I suppose the question you pose depends upon the rules and traditions
    of the forum in which these views are expressed.
    
    Scapegoating of Jews for everything under the sun is a couple of
    thousand years old. The attack from some of the weirder fringe of the
    Afro-centrist crowd is both pathetic and dangerous, but as legitimate
    as any other kind of discredited anti-semitism. 
    
    And this isn't even the most virulent example of this trash.
    
    So what's point?
    
    Kit

    
    We just are NOT responsible for the sins of the dead, period.  There
    is no point in getting all worked up because somebody casts aspersions
    on your ancestors.  I'm sure mine did all sorts of things I wouldn't
    dream of.  So while I enjoy a good tiff about history, I don't get
    the incivility.
    
    The slave traders they are discussing died centuries ago.  Lighten up !
    
      bb

  I guess one question has to do with what type of control, if any, can you
place on the internet and right now the answer is not much. 

  The internet is a giant pool of computers owned by various people with
various ideas with few common rules. About the only rules that exist are that
you can't break the law and you have to use something like TCP/IP with the law
part being in question. 

  In effect there is no information super highway. What exists is a network of
connected information side streets where everyone drives at 100mph, blows their
horn and anyone in their way, and generally does what ever they feel like doing.

  When you think about it, that's kind of nice but it does lead to situations
where the people who like to control things will want to bring it all under
some form of regulation. 

  I suppose what we could do here is have yet another go at whether the left
or the right is worse when it comes to controlling things.

  George 

>  I suppose what we could do here is have yet another go at whether the left
>or the right is worse when it comes to controlling things.
    
    	No.  First we'd have to have a go at determining what "worse"
    	means.
    
    	:^)

RE      <<< Note 279.8 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

>    	No.  First we'd have to have a go at determining what "worse"
>    	means.
    
  Or we could use this as another note to argue "I'm right and your wrong
because I can spell and you can't."

  What else? Can we make this another gun or abortion note? What do you think,
what should we fight about here?

  George

    
    OK, George - why do liberals distrust computers ?  You would think it
    would be the other way around.  But no, Newtie and we his minions
    are all over the net, we want to downsize and automate.  Regular
    Johnny Appleseeds of the computer revolution.
    
    Liberal democrats, once such futurists, seem to suspect and deride
    new technology, to oppose the nascent Information Society.  What's got
    into you guys ?  You look like Luddites.  Increasingly irrelevant.
    
    Whatsamatta ?  Can't unionize the robots ?  bb

  Ok, here we go ... 

  When Bill Clinton got to the White House the 1st thing his people noticed was
that it was not wired for P.C.s. They got on that and now the White House is
high tech. 

  Clinton is the 1st president to have an account on the internet and his VP is
a major proponent of the information super highway. 

  Democrats once again are leading the way into the future while Republicans
scurry to try to keep up.

  George

.9>  What else? Can we make this another gun or abortion note? What do you think,
>what should we fight about here?

    	How about whether 19th-century slave-runners considered it
    	littering to throw their cigarette butts overboard into the sea.
    
    	:^)

  Or how about whether or not that was a phobia?

  George

    	Well, would that phobia be the fear of throwing a cigarette
    	butt, or a fear of being negatively impacted by one that was
    	thrown?

So no one remembers former boxer Bob Comarow?

/john

    	I don't remember him.

Wasn't he a rabid vegetarian around the time of the Cosmic Anchovy?

I don't remember him being a vegetarian, but maybe.  He was pretty vocal
about native american issues; I remember that.  Worked in the Albany
office, I think.

He's currently complaining to DECUServe management about the messages
posted onto Internet news by Ted Werntz; note that Ted Werntz claims
that Bob Comarow _invited_ Ted to participate in alt.war.civil.us!

I guess Bob decided to mail me this stuff because I chimed in to the
discussion with DECUServe management with an example of the courts not
allowing a print shop business to refuse to print stuff for someone
expressing views abhorrent to the business owner.

Until he mailed me the stuff I had no idea what sort of postings Bob was
complaining about when he started his "Racist Postings" complaint.

DECUServe has fairly typical rules about content for material posted on
DECUServe Notes Conferences, but had pretty much decided not to get
involved in even thinking about the content of messages sent to the
Internet from DECUServe.

/john

From: Kevyn Jacobs <[email protected]>
Subject: SW Bell Urged to Cut Phelps' Phone Lines
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 1995 07:34:33 CST

From the {Topeka Capital-Journal) Topeka, Kansas
Front page, Friday, January 20, 1995

S.W. BELL URGED TO CUT PHELPS' CHURCH PHONES

By STEVE FRY
The Capital-Journal

A prominent Topeka businessman is challenging Southwestern Bell to
pull the plug on telephone service to Westboro Baptist Church because
of what a local lawyer calls the "defaming and harassing" faxes that
emanate from there.

Kent Garlinghouse chief executive officer and chairman of M-C Industries 
Inc., has joined with lawyer Jerry Palmer in condemning the telephone
company for not acting to curb the fax messages of Westboro Baptist
Church.

The faxes are sprinkled with words such as "fag," "sodomite," "pig"
and "whore."

The pastor of Westboro Baptist is the Rev. Fred W. Phelps Sr. Its
congregation is composed primarily of members of his family. The
congregation is best known for its anti-gay picketing. The picketing
that began on local street corners has increasingly turned up in
locales across the nation, drawing widespread media attention.

Garlinghouse said the picketing has become so embarrassing he is
reluctant to acknowledge he is from Topeka when he meets people while
out of town on business.

He and Palmer contend it is Southwestern Bell's civic duty to take
action against what they deem is an abuse of telephone service.

"I think Southwestern Bell has been a bad corporate citizen in their
failure to use the power they have to abate the serious problem this
community has with these defaming and harassing faxes," Palmer said.

"They're like the rest of the community. They're afraid. They don't
want the litigation, the hassle" with the Westboro church, Palmer
said. Many of Phelps' 13 children are lawyers.

"Southwestern Bell could -- today -- shut off the fax service to
Westboro Baptist Church if they had the will," Palmer said Wednesday.

Anne Marie Hilday, a Southwestern Bell spokesman, said the matter
boils down to a First Amendment issue.

"Southwestern Bell is a good corporate citizen because its efforts are
aimed at serving its customers fairly and without discriminating
against any customer," she said. "However, Southwestern Bell cannot
act as prosecutor, judge and jury in determining whether conversation
between two persons is defamatory and libelous or otherwise illegal."

Garlinghouse said he hasn't been the subject of a Westboro fax, but
was cursed by a church picketer as he entered a west-side restaurant
Sept. 17.

There are more issues than just the church`s faxes, Garlinghouse said,
including church picketers on Topeka streets, entertainers shunning
Topeka and harassment of Topekans attending public performances.

Palmer contends the phone company could shut off service based on a
Kansas Corporation Commission regulation linked to abuse of telephone
service. In that regulation, there is a section dealing with calls
directly to a person that reasonably could be expected to frighten,
abuse, torment or harass that person.

Southwestern Bell's Hilday counters that the regulation is applied
within the law.

Palmer said the regulation should be extended to third parties.  For
example, if A sends a fax to B about Z, the regulation should protect
Z, Palmer said.

On Aug. 11, Palmer filed a complaint with the KCC saying existing
regulations against abuse of telephone service by voice communication
are inadequate to cover abusive facsimile messages about someone who
doesn't actually receive the fax message. The phone company contends
updating the regulation isn't needed and urged the KCC to drop its
investigation.

Palmer, a longtime Phelps target on picket signs and faxes, represents
St. David's Episcopal Church in a civil lawsuit against Westboro.

Instead of cutting off phone service, Southwestern Bell is using the
criminal prosecution route, which is quicker than a civil suit or
administrative action, Hilday said.

Southwestern Bell can place a "trap" on a phone or fax machine to
trace the number of the fax sender. After three offending calls are
received, the information is turned over to law enforcement officers,
who visit the sender to talk about the complaint.

If the fax messages continue, officers can seek prosecution for
violation of the regulation. Upon conviction, the phone company can
disconnect the offender's phone service.

So far, 14 customers have complained to Southwestern Bell about the
Westboro church faxes, Hilday said, but none has agreed to use the
trap method.

The problem with the trap method is it could make the complainant a
target for more fax messages, Palmer said. Even though the complainant
wouldn't receive future messages about himself, many outlets for the
messages would, Palmer said.

By using the regulatory route, everyone benefits because Westboro
fax messages would end, Palmer said.

Using a trap to identify the Westboro church as the fax sender is
"absurd," Palmer said.

"That leaves Southwestern Bell, probably, as the only people who don't
know where the faxes are coming from," he said.

Westboro faxes usually have church logo at the top or are signed by
Phelps, Palmer said.

In October, Shawnee County District Judge Michael Barbara found Phelps
in contempt of court based, in part, on a fax issued by the minister,
Palmer said.

It isn't clear when the KCC will complete its investigation of
Palmer's complaint, said David Schlosser, KCC spokesman. Researchers
are trying to determine whether other states offer third-party
protection.

"I think it's embarrassing," Garlinghouse said of the Westboro
anti-gay campaign. "It does not make me proud to be a Topekan. It's
amazing how many people around the country are familiar with the
Phelpses.?'

 From The {Topeka Capital-Journal} Editorial Page
Sunday, January 22, 1995

Phelps faxes: Bell, it's your call.

Sidebar: Some believe the phone company has the capacity to pull
the plug on the cult of contempt's faxes

Sidebar: This is not free speech.  It is high-tech harassment.
It is reaching out and touching someone with defamation and mass
character assassination. If you feel Southwestern Bell should
stop this madness, call the company and tell it to.


Southwestern Bell, you have been duly challenged.

It's your call now.

Several knowledgeable Topekans believe you have the power, the right
and, indeed, the obligation to end the torrent of scornful, libelous
fax messages sent by the Westboro Baptist Church over the last few
years.

The challenge is this: Do you stand up for your customers, for the
law, for Topeka and for decency?

If so, you won't stand alone. The community will stand with you.  To
those few fortunate ones who have escaped viewing the faxes from Fred
Phelps' family: You just would not believe the mean-spirited bile that
flows from Phelps' church through area fax machines -- reckless
allegations of sexual improprieties and other misdeeds, public and
private; doctored cartoons and other copyright infringements meant to
embarrass particular individuals; and name-calling and threat-making
intended solely to terrorize.

This is not free speech. It is high-tech harassment. It is reaching out 
and touching someone with defamation and mass character assassination. And 
it must stop.

Some of the victims are public officials. Some are community leaders. Still 
others are private citizens with the misfortune of being discovered by the 
Cult of Contempt.

Most importantly, they are all human beings.

They don't have to live with this.

The Phelpses have an absolute right to wallow their lives away in the
sewer of their creation. But the good people of Topeka have no such
obligation. The good people of Topeka have a right to peace and harmony.

The local band of haters is disturbing that peace in every way it can,
taking glee in each new wound it makes.

But it is now time for healing.

Some, including local business owner Kent Garlinghouse and attorney Jerry 
Palmer, say Southwestern Bell can begin the healing process.

They believe Bell can and should prevent further abuse of its telephone 
customers by discontinuing phone service to Phelps' church.

The question is not whether Southwestern Bell is a good corporate
citizen. It is. The only question is, can it be better?

It just might.

Perhaps to its credit, the phone company has thus far treaded lightly.
It has legitimate concerns about denying phone service to anyone based
on how the phones are used.

Unfortunately, that caution -- which many of Topeka's other institutions 
have shown -- is outdated. The Phelpses' willingness to stretch the
bounds of reason has made it so.

In addition, Bell clearly has an obligation to do everything possible
to prevent abuse of its customers.

The present situation calls for firm action.

Palmer argues the phone company has the power to shut off phone
service to the church under Kansas Corporation Commission regulations.
Palmer also says the KCC regulations need to be beefed up -- to
protect not just the recipient of the faxes, but the subject of them.

Bell says it simply can't take the action Palmer is prescribing.

Yet, it would seem otherwise.

Regulations clearly allow the phone company to discontinue service that is 
used "for a call or calls, anonymous or otherwise, if made in a manner
which reasonably could be expected to frighten, abuse, torment or harass 
another"

Can there be any doubt that the above describes the Phelps family of
faxes?

It's time to stop pussyfooting around.

If you feel Southwestern Bell should stop this madness, call the company 
and tell it to. Tell Bell to protect the law-abiding, peace-loving customers 
it enjoys in this area.

And once Bell steps forward to end this tele-terrorism, the rest of the 
community should step forward with it.

That means further action by the city government and law enforcement commun-
ity to bring a resolution to the pickets, by the same family, that are
intended to torment and disrupt Topeka's cultural and religious life.

And it means other good citizens and corporate citizens stepping forward to 
defend one another -- to take back Topeka.

The community puts it to you, Southwestern Bell. Are you the one to call on?

             ====================================================
Reprinted with permission of TCJ Editor Mike Ryan
Phone Conversation, 01.21.95


 From The {Topeka Capital-Journal}  Letters to the Editor
Sunday, January 29, 1995

Southwestern Bell Telephone has heard your calls, Topeka. But the
message we've received is mixed.

On one hand, we've heard from those of you who want us to unilaterally
disconnect a customer's service for allegedly sending harassing
facsimile messages. On the other hand are those who fear that such
unilateral action by a telephone company could amount to an abuse of
power. They support existing procedures, which involve safeguards for
the suspension of any customer's service. They view these procedures
as necessary to protect all customers from inappropriate limits on
their speech.

We understand and appreciate the concerns expressed by both sides of
this troublesome issue. We hope the community appreciates our deliberate 
approach to considering the interests of all customers.

We have heard complaints from customers claiming they have received harassing 
faxes. We stand ready to implement the established procedures to address their
concerns. However, as a regulated telecommunications provider, we have a gen-
eral obligation to serve everyone who requests service in our operating area. 
Therefore, before we suspend a customer's service we must have facts.

At a minimum, the source of the offensive fax must be clearly established. 
The author of a fax might not be the person abusing the service of the
complaining customer. For example, we need to make sure someone else
hasn't received the fax, then retransmitted it to the complaining
customer. To do that, we put a "trap" on the complaining customer's
telephone line. But we can't do that without the written approval of
the recipient.

Once the sending customer has been identified we can advise him or her
and law enforcement authorities that the faxes are not wanted by the
recipient. We also will let the sender know that if they continue to
send faxes to the complaining customer, their telephone service may be
terminated.

Although no customer complaining of unwanted faxes has yet to provide
the necessary authorization, we are following up with customers who
indicated a willingness to authorize a trap in response to {The Capital-
Journal's January 22 editorial.

In addition, we are investigating the December 19 court ruling by
Judge Barbara that may establish grounds for enforcement action under
our tariffs.  If that's the case, it could ultimately lead to
suspension of service.  We are obtaining court records, and will
carefully review those and take any appropriate action.  We are also
exploring procedures that could be implemented to deal with the
problem of harassing faxes.  There are various calling features,
including Call Blocker, that may help.

In short, Southwestern Bell Telephone is committed to taking what we
think is a responsible approach -- one that meets our obligations to
all of our customers. But we need their commitment, too. Without that,
we are limited in our ability to solve their complaints.

We are listening, Topeka -- to both sides of the story.

Melanie S. Fannon, President-Kansas, Southwestern Bell Telephone, Topeka


[all above reprinted with permission of {Topeka Capital-Journal}.]

DECUServe management polled the participants on alt.war.civil.us, asking
the following about Ted Werntz's messages:
    
: I would appreciate comments, via e-mail, on whether the postings of this
: individual are within the reasonable bounds (conventions, standards (in
: alt.?), customs, etc.) of this group.  E-mail only, please, and I will 
: respect your privacy.
    
------------------------------

The following replies came.  YYYY is Werntz; I think ZZZZ is our (former)
own Bob Comarow, and I don't know who the others are.

=================================================

This depends, unfortunately.  There are a few posters who can't wait to 
launch personal attacks at a moment's notice.  These folks (and I don't 
count YYYY among them) either [a] want the net to be about themselves 
(AAAA fits this bill) or [b] get into flame wars at a drop of a hat (BBBB).

This is a feud between a few people.  Most of the rest of us avoid it.  I 
know two of the participants quite well through private communications 
(and one is YYYY).  All I can say is that YYYY is not like this on other 
issues.

I have written to YYYY privately about this; I have also done so to ZZZZ.
I think each of them hurts themselves in this exchange.  I do 
think YYYY goes too far some times on this issue, especially when it gets 
personal, but he is not alone in this regard.   

==============================================================

YYYY posts extremely anti-Semitic remarks in the alt.war.civil.usa 
newsgroup, frequently discussing events ad nauseum that have nothing to do 
with the Civil War--for instance, Portuguese slave traders in the 1500s.  He 
does this just to be able to talk negatively about Jews.  He personally 
attacks people quite often, especially one individual whom he knows personally 
and who is Jewish.  Some of his posts have probably been within the legal 
definition of slander.

==============================================================

I can't see how YYYY's postings could be construed as illegal.  He does not
advocate committing a crime, nor does he threaten the president.  To my
knowledge, those are the only ways posts could be illegal.

That does not mean they are not _actionable_.  ZZZZ in particular has
been libeled by YYYY, and in my opinion would have reasonable grounds
for a suit against YYYY and possibly your system.  However, he seems
unlikely to institute such a suit.  The only other people who might have
such a suit would be myself and CCCC.  I myself would not have the
money to retain a lawyer, so he (and by extension you) would have no fear
from my quarter.  I do not know about CCCC, who I assume is one of
the people who complained to you, given propensity to take action.

====================================

YYYY is very willing to discuss controversial subjects. Other's don't
take this very well. I'd say (and I'm a sysadmin at ------ with
thousands of active news users) YYYY's done nothing wrong.

Warning: most people on a.w.c.u think I'm a kook :-).

=====================================

Thank you for your timely message. As a subscriber to
alt.war.civil.usa and as a Jewish-American, I have found the
posted messages of Mr. YYYY to
be inflammatory in the extreme, inciting the worst passions
of race hatred and anti-Semitism, Jew-baiting and historic
revisionism. 

This (attachment withdrawn) is only *one* of many hateful anti-Semitic messages
that YYYY has posted on alt.war.civil.usa. To reprint
all of his disgusting material would take up many megabytes
of disk space. Historians on alt.war.civil.usa have wasted
valuable time in composing intelligent responses to these
hateful diatribes, for the benefit of "lurkers" who may
otherwise be influenced by the historic revisionism of Mr.
YYYY.

Mr. YYYY is also engaged in a personal war with Mr. ZZZZ.
I have not seen anything in the newsgroup from Mr. ZZZZ
to justify the vicious personal attacks posted
against him by Mr. YYYY. Mr. ZZZZ is an innocent victim
of Mr. YYYY' psychosis.

Neither of these two gentlemen (and I use the term with
extreme generosity in reference to Mr. YYYY) are known to
me personally. My only knowledge of them is through the
Internet.

I hope that you will consider the negative impact that Mr.
YYYY' historical revisionism has on your Internet system.
When someone takes advantage of their Internet access for
the furtherance of such a hateful agenda, one has to
question the system administrators. I realize that there is
a First Amendment to the Constitution, but on the Internet
"speech" is not free-- it must be paid for.

Thanks very much for your concern.

===========================================

Subject: YYYY is a fine fellow, let him continue writing.

 There is a small group of people that work together inciting someone
that posts what they dislike. When this group cannot defeat the person's
writings, even when they lead the person off topic, and cannot get that
person worn down and accept defeat then they will complain to the
system administrator. This was done here to another about three months
ago. YYYY is a victim of being led into highly contraversial subject
matter, sometimes off topic, and never does give in to this censorship
group of about 5 people. DDDD, EEEE, FFFF,
GGGG work together in this way to produce the censorship they
desire while writing whatever and however they please complete with
profanities (which YYYY hasn't used). It's a Game. Read "Games People Play"
by Dr. Eric Berne on transactional analysis for a better understanding of
why this takes place with small groups censoring the individual when
he/she does not give in and continues to defend his/her points. It's a group
power game with nothing for that group to lose and with this internet area to
totally control.

==========================

YYYY has made many statements that are very helpful in research 
and especially on explosive topics such as 'slavery' and the Jewish 
involvement. Everyone that posts frequently and openly writes as YYYY
has been writing but I suspect they will alter that for a short while
since you openly posted your statement and questions.
YYYY has sought fairness with the Native Americans, the 
African Americans and in the beginning, with the Jewish race.
All have been highly controversial from all posters here and no more
so than what YYYY has written. But YYYY, like another, does not have a
small group, as listed above by names, working with him and
complaining when they cannot defeat the lad in debates and believe me,
the civil war is very much a debatible subject so debates are the norm.
Naturally they can get hot and all who post here get argumentative at
one point or another. Still, that group of names I listed work together
to control this area as much as possible. YYYY and a few others have
held up under heavy arguments. It's why he has now been complained
about, he doesn't give in and I think not giving in to such small
groups that try to censor other's ideas out takes courage. In that light,
YYYY has made your system worth existing as far as this area goes.
It is disheartening and disgusting that they have done this to YYYY.
They could not out debate him although they did anger him a few times.
So, now they seek censorship on yet another person as posted openly
here in the past. What is this nation dropping to? Let YYYY continue if
he's still willing. He brings in =many new= ideas to think over as
opposed to rehashing the same things over and over.
 
======================

I would say I am against limiting access.  He clearly has some 
strange opinions on Jewish slave trading, but I would be loath to 
see his access limited on this account.  He also frequently posts 
interesting accurate information on the civil war, his other 
opinions are such that none subscribe to them.  If we wanted 
limits this would be a moderated group, it is not because we wish 
all opinions.

=================================

Mr. YYYY's comments on alt.war.civil.usa are far outside the
bounds of acceptable Usenet behavior, both for that group and for
Usenet in question. They violate the norms in two ways, one of which
is subjective and of which are objective.
The subjective, and more displeasing way, is that Mr. YYYY's
posts are bigoted, anti-Semitic, inflammatory, and offensive. They
are outside the acceptable standards of any conversation, electronic
or otherwise, in which I or many other people care to take part. I
am sure that HHHH has provided you with plenty of samples of
Mr. YYYY's posts to prove that they are as I say they are; but if you
read the group for a few weeks you will no doubt see more with your own
eyes. Mr. YYYY's posts are as frequent as they are offensive.
The objective way in which Mr. YYYY's posts violate Usenet norms
are that they are persistently unrelated to the charter of the
newsgroup, which is intended to discuss the Civil War and is not
intended to be a forum for views on Christian-Jewish relationships
or the intra-African slave trade, both topics which Mr. YYYY raises
frequently. Mr YYYY's posts on the Atlantic slave trade would not be
inherently off-topic (though they would remain offensive) if they
would remain on the subject of American slavery and its effects on
the war: but they frequently range outside that. Mr. YYYY has been
asked repeatedly to confine his remarks to the newsgroup's intended
discussion but he has refused to do this, and indeed, he has tried
to intimidate and threaten those who have requested it of him,
accusing them of bigotry themselves.
In addition, Mr. YYYY's posts are frequently factually incorrect,
which in and of itself is not a problem (he can be corrected easily
enough) but which exaggerates the effect of the other two problems
above in a manner that makes him much more unpleasant and inappropriate
than he would be otherwise.

==========================================

YYYY is a viscious racist who continualy spews anti-semitic
b.s.

But there's no law against it, and he generally stays within
the group charter.  I think it's pretty low that you would
publically invite people to bash YYYY.

First-time admin?

Don't bother replying.

==============================================

While I would not personally agree with everything YYYY says, he has
offered much to the group in the past.

==============================================

    I'm not certain that I agree with YYYY (hardly ever), but he has not
put forward his contention that Jews were prominent in the African
slave trade  in a manner that I personally find offensive.  His
conclusions (and I am here assuming that whoever complained to you also
forwarded the relevant posts so that you are aware of what YYYY has been
writing) may not be accurate, may not be based on careful research, may
not be stated very well; but he has always been reasonably polite and
never, in my memory, obscene.  He has certainly generated discussion,
which is why we all come here, I think.  If we all agreed, it'd be a
real quiet newsgroup.  There are a few who post here, some of whom I
even agree with more often, who I find much more offensive than YYYY in
terms of their lack of respect for opposing viewpoints.

  I don't hold with bigotry, but I do not perceive YYYY as a
bigot, nor do I think that stating a (perceived) fact about a
member/members of a given religion or ethnic group constitutes bigotry.
 As a member of a much-maligned group myself (I'm a ------) I developed
a sensitivity to that sort of thing early on...

========================================================

(a) I firmly believe that Mr. YYYY is mentally ill and that his messages
are the Internet equivalent of a raving street person.  The problem of
how to deal with mentally unbalanced persons on the Internet is a serious
one, but on balance I don't want Mr. YYYY or anyone else banned.  I will
say that some of the things that he's said about ZZZZ are slanderous
and could expose him to a defamation suit if ZZZZ were so inclined.
 
=========================================================

I'm responding to your request for alt.war.civil.usa participants' comments
on YYYY's postings.  I'm primarily a lurker, but have been following
the group with interest for several years.

I'm sorry to have to say that I can only add to the complaints about YYYY's
postings.  Many of them have ranged from inappropriate to offensive for
the following reasons:

1) his refusal to consistently follow the charter of the group in discussing
   Civil War-related events.  Some digression is of course normal and 
   natural, but YYYY uses the group as a springboard for
2) incredibly antisemitic, historically inaccurate postings blaming Jews 
   for everything from killing Indians to singlehandedly spearheading the 
   slave trade to inciting hatred against Christians to dominating the media.  
   Group members have consistently posted countering material, explained why 
   his postings about the evils of Jews are inappropriate, expressed disgust, 
   and asked him to desist and stick to the group's charter.  YYYY remains
   thick and verbally assaults those who disagree with him, accusing them
   of behaving like Nazis, etc.
3) his repeated personal slander of another newsgroup member, ZZZZ.
  
I don't know to what extent the above will continue if YYYY knows you are
following the newsgroup, but he has been a real problem both from a
newsgroup-charter standpoint and for his sheer offensiveness not only
to Jews but to non-bigots and to people who take history seriously.

Antietam:

     Union General McClellan with some 70,000 troops followed Robert E. Lee to
Sharpsburg MD. There he found him with 39,000 men, the Potomac to his back and 
across his front a sluggish creek called the Antietam. As at Shiloh, there was
a little church at Antietam. It was a Dunker church, standing white and peaceful
along a road with a wood to its rear and across the road a cornfield and another
wood. Here on the morning of September 17, 1862, McClellan attempted to break 
Lee's left wing under Stonewall Jackson. All day long the battle raged around 
the church, cornfield and the sunken lane known as "Bloody Lane". Thus in the 
high drama of a roaring and critical twilight, the battle of Antietam, the 
bloodiest single day in civil war history came to a close. Lee had suffered 
13,700 casualties against 12,350 union losses. 
    Antietam was not so much a Union victory as Confederate defeat, but however
it may be described its effects were more far-reaching than those of any other
battle in the war. First, by forcing Lee to withdraw from Maryland, it caused
Britain and France to postpone a decision on intervention. Second, it called
forth the Emancipation Proclamation.
    Since the war began Lincoln had moved cautiously on the slavery issue. The
loyal slave states of Maryland, Deleware, Kentucky, Missouri and West Virginia
were highly sensitive on the question and they blocked Lincoln's cherished
proposal for compensated emancipation. In some ways, the slaves themselves were
forcing Lincoln closer to a major decision. Whenever Union arms entered 
Confederate territory, the slaves flocked to the union side, thus enraging their
masters and embarrassing Federal commanders. For a time this problem seemed 
solved when Ben Butler used his lawyers mind to classify the slaves as 
"contraband of war" and the "contrabands" were organized into labor battalions.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spotsylvania:

The 8 day battle of Spotsylvania (Casualties: Union 17,000-18,000, Confederate 
9,000-10,000) followed shortly after the battle of the Wilderness (Casualties:
Union 15,000-18,000, Confederate 7,750-11,400). During this 8 day battle, some
of the most vicious fighting that ever took place on american soil occurred 
along the "Mule Shoe". It was worst on Wright's front, "The Bloody Angle" as it
was called. It was hand to hand. Men fired muskets muzzle to muzzle, and struck
at each other with battle flags. The rebels ran their guns right up to the 
parapets and sprayed double canister shot into rank after rank of Yankees. Fence
rails and logs in the breastworks were actually splintered by the hail of Mini�
balls, and trees over a foot and a half in diameter were cut in two by them.
Skulls were smashed with clubbed muskets, men were stabbed to death by swords &
bayonets thrust between the logs of the parapets separating the forces, and the
wounded were entombed alive by the crush of dead bodies toppling upon their
wriggling, helpless forms. Night fell and a fierce rainstorm broke, and still 
the struggle convulsed the Bloody Angle until at last, at midnight, both sides
sank on their arms in exhaustion. It was during the Spotsylvania battle that 
Lee lost his dashing cavalry commander Gen. Jeb Stuart who died while engaging 
union cavalry under the command of Gen. Phil Sheridan at Yellow Tavern about 10 
miles above Richmond Va.