In article <fp23dl$as9$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Frank Bures <feeb@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Karel Kriz wrote:
> > In article
> > <0c74a8a0-9e7a-45f4-a975-e55b612a3d25@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > kujebak <kujebak@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 13, 10:57 am, Karel Kriz <ka...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> In article <fovata$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 documentary 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
I read it. I will not watch the movie. The article is plain silly. It
may be a gospel to you, but I find it hilarious and scary at the same
time. It's a gift that would keep on giving, if only there was enough
time to address at least some of it's bizarre assertions. And, BTW it's
not a review, it's an endorsement. Made me laugh..."leftist
triumphalism"...that IS funny.
K
|
