On Feb 13, 2:31=A0pm, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article
> <0c74a8a0-9e7a-45f4-a975-e55b612a3...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
>
>
>
>
> =A0kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > On Feb 13, 10:57=A0am, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > In article <fovata$ui...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > =A0Frank Bures <f...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > Diversity of opinion is squashed, sometimes with savagely
hypocritic=
al
> > > > zeal. At Indian River Community College in Florida, the Christian
> > > > Fellow****p was refused the right to show The Passion of the Christ
b=
ecause
> > > > 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
Passi=
on
> > > 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
Christm=
as
> > > 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
s=
ee
> > > 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 -
Your rants are getting so that I read only every fifth line, just in
case you mention my name in vain. y
|
