Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!scott
From: scott@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Deerwester)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: an interesting juxtaposition
Message-ID: <400@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 14:24:32 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.400
Posted: Fri Apr  5 14:24:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Apr-85 03:22:46 EST
Reply-To: scott@gargoyle.UUCP (& Deerwester)
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 51

>>>>> I used to use readnews and just switched to rn.  After looking at an
>>>>> article in the recent debate between Rich Rosen and Laura Creighton
>>>>> about whether Rich should be posting in net.religion.christian, I hit
>>>>> the return and saw:
>>>>> 
>>>>> End of newsgroup net.religion.christian.
>>>>> 
>>>>> See Rich?  Even the *computer* is on Laura's side! :-)
>>>>> [DEERWESTER]
>>>>
>>>>Isn't it amazing how some people, in an effort to convince (themselves and
>>>>others) of the correctness of their views, will resort to the most brazenly
>>>>teleological arguments of the shoddiest kine in support...
>>>> [ROSEN]
>>>
>>>It was a JOKE, Rich.  (Sheesh, you try inject a little humor...)
>>> [DEERWESTER]
>>
>> And here I thought it was only fundamentalists like me who
>> were literalists!  [PAUL DUBOIS]
>
>I knew my good friend Paul Dubois would eventually come through and show
>what a true Christian he is, by condemning Christian bigotry as being
>truly anti-Christian.  I knew that *he* wasn't the type to avoid the
>whole issue by dredging up some month-old article that I had already
>responded to just for the purpose of poking fun.  Thanks, Paul.  I knew
>I could count on you.  (P.S.  And my response WASN'T a joke???  Says something
>about your own "literalism"...  Oh, and where *was* that response of yours?)
> [ROSEN]

Now I'M even confused!  WHAT Christian bigotry are you talking
about????  It seems that you're upset about something, but for the
life of me, I can't figure out what.

Summary of this conversation:

>>>> Feeble attempt at humor by me at Rich's expense.
>>> Flame by Rich in response, meant to be taken as humor, I think.
>> Response by me, not knowing that Rich's flame was in jest.
> Humorous reponse by Paul, playing on the word "literal".
Flame by Rich in response..

Lighten up a little, huh Rich?
-- 
	Scott Deerwester
	Graduate Library School
	University of Chicago

...!ihnp4!gargoyle!scott	UUCP
scott@UChicago.CSNet		CSNet
scott@UChicago.ARPA		ARPA