Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cylixd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!akgub!cylixd!dave
From: dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby)
Newsgroups: net.jokes.d
Subject: Re: THAT article
Message-ID: <621@cylixd.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Dec-85 10:47:34 EST
Article-I.D.: cylixd.621
Posted: Tue Dec 24 10:47:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Dec-85 01:26:01 EST
References: <1781@teddy.UUCP> <2634@sjuvax.UUCP> <1031@utcs.uucp>
Reply-To: dave@cylixd.UUCP (Dave Kirby)
Distribution: net
Organization: RCA Cylix Communications , Memphis, TN
Lines: 48

>>I didn't know whether your original article was a put-on or not.  But if you
>>think that it was the most ludicrous viewpoint ever to be posted on a world-
>>wide bulletin board, then you haven't been reading this net long enough.

Boy, ain't that the truth! Read net.origins or net.abortion and you'll
find all kinds of postings more ludicrous than THAT article. Even better,
just look at net.jokes and see all the cretinous flames that belong in
net.jokes.d. (Some belong in /dev/null.)

Since THAT article was posted to net.jokes instead of net.jokes.d, I
gave the poster the benefit of the doubt and treated it like a satire.
This, of course, was risky, since a lot of ignorant people post serious
complaints to net.jokes, and their articles are usually just about as
ludicrous as THAT article.

I realised for sure that THAT article was not serious when I got to
the section where he said LORD JESUS CHRIST in capital letters. I have
the unique privilege of living in the Bible belt, where I come into
contact with a lot of fundamentalists. I know from experience that this
phrase is not characteristic of fundamentalists, so it then was 
quite obvious to me that the writer was doing a cruel, hilarious
satire. (Fundamentalists never use all three words. The correct cliche
is "Lord Jesus.")

The trouble with satire is that if you make it too obvious, people will
think it's corny, and if you make it too subtle, people will take it
seriously. I am one who loves to write satire, and I try to make it very
subtle at first, then gradually get more and more ridiculous until it
gets quite obvious at the end. That way everybody catches on at some
point in the article, realises that I am pulling their leg, and thus
can have a good laugh. When I get to the end and find that that it 
is no more ridiculous than the thing I am satirising, I will post a
humourous disclaimer at the very end that out-and-out states that I
was not serious. (I had to do this one time when I posted a satirical
racist response to net.politics; by the time I finished writing it I 
realised that the article was no more ridiculous than other racist
articles, so some might very reasonably take me seriously.)

I don't consider THAT article a slap at those who took it seriously. I
consider this whole affair a grand slap at the cretins who post
articles just about as ridiculous (sometimes MORE ridiculous) to the
wrong newsgroup and think they are doing God and their country a favour.
Some of the latter group's articles are so stupid as to make it hard 
to tell them apart from the satirical ones. And that is the main thing
that this whole exercise has shown.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Kirby    ( ...!ihnp4!akgub!cylixd!dave)