Subject: Re: Gritz - Mormon officials warn against his teachings

From: [email-masked] (Seth Bradley)
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1992 21:30:02 GMT

In article <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Steve Crocker) writes:
>groups having racist and/or anti-semetic views. In fact its opening 
>lines provide a summary of the analytical method applied throughout.
>"Lie down with dogs - get up with fleas". In other words, guilt by
>association.
>Do you have anything better than this to support your claim?

Gritz is a politician - not some John Doe off of the street.  If you
feel that the nature of the organizations he has associated himself
with have no bearing whatsoever on his own views, then the only
other explanation that makes sense is that he knows nothing of the
nature of those organizations, and also that he is tremendously naive
politically.  A politician is known by the company he keeps.  Would
a conservative republican have much credibility if he was known 
to associate with the American Communist Party?  To deny that Gritz
favors the policies of the extremist groups he has associated himself
with smacks of apologetics, IMHO.
-- 
Seth J. Bradley, Senior System Administrator, Intel SCIC
Internet: [email-masked]   UUCP: uunet!scic.intel.com!sbradley
----------------------------------------
"A system admin's life is a sorry one.  The only advantage he has over
Emergency Room doctors is that malpractice suits are rare.  On the other
hand, ER doctors never have to deal with patients installing new versions
of their own innards!"  -Michael O'Brien

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: 5 Dec 92 09:44:30 CST

> with smacks of apologetics, IMHO.

In other words, you don't have any specifics either.

-Joe Gaut

---

From: [email-masked] (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen)
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1992 08:54:08 GMT

In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Steve Crocker) writes:
> What evidence have you seen that Gritz qualifies. The long report
> from P.A.R.T. posted here shows only that Gritz has associated with

That, and a couple of pamphlet's I've seen posted here from him and about
him. I just wish to make the observation that you claim that "guilt by
association" is not valid. Well, I claim otherwise. If a politician
associates with and becomes a member of a certain group, you can reasonably
belive he supports those causes. Don't tell me that he is no longer a member
and has changed his ways, I don't go for that in this case. Yes, I think
in this case he not only got up with fleas, but also transmogryphied into
one. 

--Ralph