Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!think!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The Book of Flammage
Message-ID: <1187@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Oct-86 14:35:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.1187
Posted: Wed Oct  8 14:35:23 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Oct-86 05:09:43 EDT
References: <11900055@uiucdcsb> <1169@cybvax0.UUCP> <16048@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 53
Keywords: Whom might we flame?

In article <16048@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> gsmith@brahms.UUCP (Gene Ward Smith)
very adroitly catches me hoist by my own petard:

> In article <1169@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> 
> >This is a flame, written for amusement value only.  There is just something
> >about certain kinds of dogmatic behavior that kindles derision in me....
>
> In article <1178@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes:
> 
> >There are perhaps 10 contributors to *.religion.* whose articles strike me as
> >penetrating.  (At least two of them are Christian.)  Gary is perhaps the most
> >erudite of that bunch.  Most other contributors repeat tired, old errors that
> >are generally scoffed at in intellectual circles.  Or worse, resort to no
> >content but derision, as in the above statement.

Ouch.  Well, look, I said I was a sinner too, right up front.  Doesn't that
exhonerate me?  No?  Shit!

>    Now this leads to the question: when derision is kindled, what does Mike
> think should be done about it? Is it OK to deride Bahis for being Bahis, 
> but not OK to deride Gary Bucholtz for expressing his rather idiosyncratic
> views? I often find Mike's comments penetrating, and sometimes find them
> annoying, but I would hate to find that they were immune from derision
> by reason of ineluctable profundity. In other words, if certain views
> are scoffable in intellectual circles, I want to reserve the right to scoff
> here as well. I might even want to sneak in a tired literary allusion or
> two if I am feeling especially dyspeptic.

I understand now.  You're actually the Piranha Brother that uses sarcasm.
Well, I'm not going to tear my head off (though I'm tempted.)

>    What role does erudition play in protecting us from the scoffers? It
> certainly makes one harder to deal with. But there are a few very erudite
> people on the net (Yakim Murillo is the most notable example) who seem to
> require a little derision even so.

Yes.  Why we both could bear a little derision every now and then too.... :-)

I think my problem was that the "Brave new world that has such men in it"
quotation was too terse and vague an attack for me to rebut it directly.
You know, bumper-sticker thinking.  Unless one wants to explore the literary
allusions at length, it's hard to show that it's anything more than an
ad-hominem show of disapproval.  My self-proclaimed flame did at least have
quite a few direct points that could be rebutted.

In any event, thank you Gene: I stand chastened.
--

A tongue in cheek prevents foot in mouth.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh