Karel Kriz wrote:
> In article
> <0c74a8a0-9e7a-45f4-a975-e55b612a3d25@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 13, 10:57 am, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> In article <fovata$ui...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> 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,
have you read the article? Or just glanced over it?
The article is basically just a review of a do***entary movie. It does
not
add anything to its factual content. So if you have problem with what the
article says, watch the movie and let us know.
P.S. I did not see the movie, so I cannot comment.
Cheers
Frank
--
<feeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
