Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!greg From: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: The Good, the Bad, and the Stupid (LONG) Message-ID: <4600@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Date: 27 Nov 88 20:18:15 GMT References: <1092@osupyr.mast.ohio-state.edu> <429@mccc.UUCP> <1086@etive.ed.ac.uk> <445@mccc.UUCP> Reply-To: greg@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Gregory Nowak) Organization: Princeton University, NJ Lines: 28 In article <445@mccc.UUCP> pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes: }In article <1086@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: }=Just out of idle curiosity, what is this inherent difference between }=jokes and "religious and intellectual works" that makes it OK to }=suppress one and not the other? }Julian, } I doubt that anything I could say would impress you. If you }don't understand the difference between "religious and intellectual }works" on the one hand and "jokes" on the other, I'm afraid I can't help you. You mean, we're supposed to understand and respect this distinction, and yet you can't even *describe* it? What about "Candide"? Joke or intellectual work? "In Praise of Folly"? "Letters from Obscure Men" -- joke, religious work, or editorial? Cage's 4'33" -- Zen meditation piece, musical work, or conceptual art? Hell, any Zen koan? I'm confused. Why don't you just define the distinction, indicating clearly whether "Letters of Obscure Men" should be censored as a joke or granted freedom of speech as a religio/intellectual work, and we won't bother you any more. -- rutgers!phoenix.princeton.edu!greg Gregory A Nowak/Phoenix Gang/Princeton NJ "Take 2*3*5*7*11*13. It's divisible by 59." --Matt Crawford