In article
<4a122b3c-c3b7-4387-ae7e-0f5eb8a9d640@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 12:31 pm, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0c74a8a0-9e7a-45f4-a975-e55b612a3...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Feb 13, 10:57 am, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > In article <fovata$ui...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > > Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Diversity of opinion is squashed, sometimes with savagely
> > > > > hypocritical
> > > > > zeal. At Indian River Community College in Florida, the
Christian
> > > > > Fellow****p was refused the right to show The Passion of the
Christ
> > > > > because
> > > > > it was "R rated," but a play called F--king for Jesus was
permitted,
> > > > > featuring a girl masturbating before a picture of Jesus.
> >
> > > > While any kind of censor****p is deplorable, personally I'd go to
see
> > > > "****ing for Jesus" before wild horses would drag me to see "The
> > > > Passion
> > > > of Christ". But that is a purely personal preference -
masturbation
> > > > being decidedly a more benign activity than sado-maso torture,
> > > > gratuitous violence flavored with racist overtones and human
> > > > crucifixion. But each to his own.
> >
> > > > The rest of the article is a total waste of time. Some of these
> > > > incidents may be true, some partially true, some are invented. It
all
> > > > belongs into the same box of curios and myths that O'Reilly dusts
off
> > > > every Christmas trying to show himself off as The Crusader for
> > > > Christmas
> > > > that he imagines is under some obscure attack. Did you notice that
> > > > there's NEVER any kind of a corroboration in these articles? I
don't
> > > > see
> > > > any. All I read is sniveling.
> >
> > > > But again, each to his own. If you feel that "niggah" is
preferable to
> > > > "African American" take your sorry ass to Brooklyn and talk to a
few
> > > > people that way. You'll make many friends, fer sure.
> >
> > > > K
> >
> > > Your personal preferences are irrelevant.
> > > The issue brought up here is campus censor****p,
> > > which, apparently, does not bother you.
> > > I'm not the only one who finds your attitude intel-
> > > lectually dishonest, and somewhat peculiar, con-
> > > sidering your background.
> >
> > My personal preferences are what matters - to me. It's a well known
fact
> > that you believe that all teachers and scientists are raving
communists.
> > I think that your viewpoint is biased, narrow and exaggerated. There
is
> > nothing "intellectually dishonest" about having an opinion about an
> > article. I think the article is pure bull**** designed to reinforce
> > biased, narrow and exaggerated opinion. I am, frankly, astonished that
> > anyone takes this stuff seriously. This kind of "we are under attack
by
> > some nasty people who don't have the same principles" is played by the
> > evangelicals all the time. And that is also bull**** as there is no
> > attack.
> > Intellectually dishonest?
> > Here's an example from an editorial in yesterdays LA Times. The writer
> > received a letter asking for financial contribution to defend Boy
Scouts
> > of America against a lawsuit filed against them by the ACLU. The
> > lawsuit, if won, would force Boy Scouts to hire gay scout leaders.
> > Here's the rub. There is no open lawsuit against the Boy Scouts by the
> > ACLU. There were suits in the past that have been settled, but they
> > dealt mostly with the Boy Scouts DENYING member****p to someone because
> > of religious (or lack) beliefs.
> > Is this dishonest? It is in my book.
> >
> > So, it's always the same tired theme -" our values are under attack,
> > help us to defend them and - if you are not with us, you are against
> > us!" And where did I hear that before...Sorry, it's really pathetic.
> > ****ers.
> >
> > Karel- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You can spin this all you want, but you cannot in any
> way challenge the fact that conservative viewpoint does
> not get equal time, and equal sanction on our college
> campuses. The only thing you can do is to grope for
> justifications in order to give yourself something to feel
> better about it. That is intellectually dishonest.
Bull****! There you go again, whining and sniveling "we don't get our
time, poor little us, those nasty liberals won't let us in". Yeah,
everybody is against you. There's even a term for that. Starts with a P.
K
|
