Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site reed.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!reed!suki From: suki@reed.UUCP (Monica Nosek) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.religion Subject: Re: Defaming the name of Cod Message-ID: <1192@reed.UUCP> Date: Thu, 28-Mar-85 15:07:27 EST Article-I.D.: reed.1192 Posted: Thu Mar 28 15:07:27 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 31-Mar-85 02:48:52 EST References: <1108@reed.UUCP> <1304@aecom.UUCP> Reply-To: suki@reed.UUCP (Monica Nosek) Organization: Reed College, Portland, Oregon Lines: 82 Xref: watmath net.flame:9029 net.religion:6383 Summary: Barking up entirely the wrong tree In article <1304@aecom.UUCP> teitz@aecom.UUCP (Eliyahu Teitz) writes: > Just because one religion was attacked is no reason to attack > another religion. Besides, why pick only on Judaism. There are many > other religions to write songs about. I am not advocating writing any > songs, in fact none should be. But if you find your's attacked, attacking > another is no answer. > > Eliyahu Teitz. Oh, but Mr. Teitz, I agree. Far from "picking on" Judaism (you might like to look up Mr. Saal in n.r.j.--he makes a great case for my virulent anti-semitism), I am repeating the opinion expressed in a personal flame to Mr. Houts. The author of this flame was a Christian, and a very angry Christian at that. I certainly didn't get the impression from his letter that he meant, "OK, stop picking on Christianity, but go rile those Jews, hyuck, hyuck." Rather, I think he was saying, "Writing about Cheese in n.r.c is as offensive to me and other Christians as your writing about Moses or Abraham in n.r.j. would be to Jews. In fact, you would be called anti-semitic, which is very serious and nasty, if you were to do so. If you don't believe me, then try it and see what happens." I suppose I erred in not adding the final line of the letter to Bill, which was something to the effect of "If you do, I hope you get roasted right here like you deserve." As to attacking religion, Bill was not attacking Christianity by writing the cheese songs; his crime was to make some awful puns. I personally found the cheese songs a great deal of fun, especially after I got into the act and came up with "'Cheese is Nice' Superstore". If you found the cheese songs offensive, I hope you wrote Bill a long nasty letter; he loves to get mail from faraway places. As for RETALIATING against other religions, I DIDN'T find my religion attacked. Right now, anyway, I'm pretty much agnostic--actually, my ideas about God just don't exactly fit into any organized religion at the moment, so I guess agnostic is the wrong word. Since you have misinterpreted my posting, I can't really fault your argument too much. You've reached a conclusion from a given (wrong) set of presumptions. OK. But you've taken seriously a posting with a subject line about fish (no, I meant to say Cod, not God), a keywords line from Bloom County, a first line from Star Wars, and a P.S. from every singles bar in the world--"I'm a Pisces; what are you?" I apologize for the lack of clarity. I refer you all to n.r.j. for Mr. Saal's posting. The subject line is "Another Don Black type"; it's easy to find. Like I've said before, I'm sorry that my posting led to such misunderstanding; I understand (vaguely) how you could have taken it seriously (long day at the office, bad mood, witch hunting) but even then I don't understand how you reached the interpretation you did. Ah well, one problem with the net is that one can't very well explain each word with utter clarity. Please look again and think about the different interpretations we have. Who knows? Maybe the originator of the letter to Bill DID mean "stick to to n.r.j. rah, rah, rah", but I doubt it. I thought he misinterpreted Bill's cheese songs, but he certainly made a good analogy by suggesting that Bill post to n.r.j. "This is one angry man," I thought. "He really wants Bill to get in trouble." Not "He wants Bill, who he thinks is scum, to do him a favor and join him in a bloodletting." I apologize for the misinterpretations, I apologize for the misinterpretations, I apologize for the misinterpretations. Can I go now? Perhaps you don't think I'm serious. I am. With one last apology for good measure, Monica ...!tektronix!reed!suki p.s. I know you said that you didn't advocate the writing of any more songs, but then, why did you include "Why pick only on Judaism? There are many other religions to write songs about."? I'm sorry that you feel that my "attack" singled out Judaism for some evil purpose; what if I had said "Why don't you write a ditty about the Koran and dump it in net.religion.moslem"? Since the point of the statement was to point out to Bill how odious his statement was to Christians, and not to advocate spreading Christianity by destroying other religions with the computer terminal and rhyming dictionary, it shouldn't really have mattered which religion I put there. BUT...there was no such advocation inherent in the statement, and certainly no slant against Judaism.