On Feb 13, 7:28=A0pm, kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 4:08=A0pm, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <4a122b3c-c3b7-4387-ae7e-0f5eb8a9d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>
> > =A0kujebak <kuje...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > On Feb 13, 12:31=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
> > > > > > > hypocritical
> > > > > > > zeal. At Indian River Community College in Florida, the
Christ=
ian
> > > > > > > Fellow****p was refused the right to show The Passion of the
Ch=
rist
> > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > it was "R rated," but a play called F--king for Jesus was
perm=
itted,
> > > > > > > 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 -
masturbat=
ion
> > > > > > 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.
I=
t all
> > > > > > belongs into the same box of curios and myths that O'Reilly
dust=
s off
> > > > > > every Christmas trying to show himself off as The Crusader for
> > > > > > Christmas
> > > > > > that he imagines is under some obscure attack. Did you notice
th=
at
> > > > > > there's NEVER any kind of a corroboration in these articles? I
d=
on't
> > > > > > see
> > > > > > any. All I read is sniveling.
>
> > > > > > But again, each to his own. If you feel that "niggah" is
prefera=
ble 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
communi=
sts.
> > > > 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
th=
at
> > > > 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
t=
he
> > > > 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
writ=
er
> > > > received a letter asking for financial contribution to defend Boy
Sc=
outs
> > > > 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
t=
he
> > > > ACLU. There were suits in the past that have been settled, but
they
> > > > dealt mostly with the Boy Scouts DENYING member****p to someone
becau=
se
> > > > 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.=
>
> As observed before, you and I don't seem to be living
> in the same country ;-)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrinate_U
>
>
>
> > K- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
'
That is the first time you noticed? He hails from the Socialist
Republic of Berkley. He drives his hybrid up there every week. y
|
