Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!stolaf!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross)
Newsgroups: net.jokes.d
Subject: Re: traditional values
Message-ID: <427@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Jan-86 11:11:13 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.427
Posted: Wed Jan 29 11:11:13 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Feb-86 00:18:54 EST
References: <263@galbp.UUCP> <418@cisden.UUCP> <1124@oddjob.UUCP> <451@cisden.UUCP> <1142@oddjob.UUCP> <424@mmm.UUCP> <1145@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross)
Distribution: net
Organization: 3M Company, St. Paul, Minn.
Lines: 69

In article <1145@oddjob.UUCP> apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) writes:
>  In the next sentences, which you carefully omit, I explain exactly why
>Fr. Woolley's interpretation doesn't hold up.                 

Actually, I carefully omitted the "explanation" because I figured
everybody read it already, and since it was so simplistic, that 
nobody would have trouble remembering it. I didn't want to post
an article filled with "excessive quotations". Notice that I did
it again this time. I wish you had, also - your article took up more
bytes than necessary.
>>
>   Hey, you seem to have discovered a good game here, no? Excise all the
>arguments from a posting, criticise the posting as though they never existed,
>and you can make the article seem ridiculous. Have fun. 
>I'm just curious about why you started with mine.

Mostly because I wanted to keep the posting size down, and I didn't
think people would have much difficulty remembering your argument. I 
don't really think your arguments were ridiculous so much as they were
overly sensitive. See the other responses regarding this joke for
good analyses that I wish I had made (e.g. the one about Jesse Jackson
on Sat. Night Live and the one that points out that jokes in which
someone is murdered are not considered support for the practice of
homicide.


...more stuff intentionally omitted ...

>  Oh, now I understand why you chose my posting for your game. I sympathize.
>All these women annoying you by calling themselves feminists, when you actually
>have a supernatural ability to detect true feminists. And they don't like it
>when you tell them they're fake feminists. Worse still, they don't find your
>jokes funny. 

Actually, it doesn't take supernatural ability to see whether someone is
a feminist - it's fairly obvious to a reasonably sensitive observer. Also,
I never called her a fake feminist - I'm not so rude as to insult people
like that. What I meant by the "real" vs. "fake" feminists is that the women
whom I know and admire live their lives as feminists, but don't go around
spouting about it. The women that I have met who spout usually have an
unrealistic view of reality and don't really know what equality is. (they
usually don't want equality, but rather female dominance. I'd rather see
equality that the dominance of either sex.) Also note that this is not
limited to women or feminists - there are male idiots in this world, too.
My own personal opinion is that on any given subject, 90% of the people
are idiots - and the most violently extreme positions are held by the
biggest of the idiots. (I don't mean you - don't be offended - I mean
Andrea Dworkin and her ilk).

>  I'm sorry to have recalled these unhappy memories for you.

Wasn't so bad - we were friends anyway, she just had no sense of humor,
and that precluded any kind of romantic relationship. By the way, it
wasn't just my opinion that she was humorless - everybody else who knew
both of us agreed. She is a very nice person - just not my type, that's all.
As for it being an unhappy memory - actually, I cherish it as one of
my happy memories - it never fails to get a laugh when I recount it
to friends.

>>I have a question for Adrian, though. In all seriousness, the woman in the 
>>joke was clearly a prostitute (at least part-time :-)). She provided sex
>>for money, and the john did not pay her for her services. The question
>>is - do you consider that rape?
>>		-MKR
>  No. Happy now?
Yes - that means you're rational. You know, there *are* those who would
say "yes". There *are* those who call poverty "violence against women."

	--MKr