From: Tim Maroney Area: MagickNet To: David Stein 21 Jun 92 13:53:50 Subject: RE: Re: death threats UpdReq Paganism has its own share of Tawana Brawleys. Timbo 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Karl Lembke Area: MagickNet To: William Mclaughlin 21 Jun 92 22:00:48 Subject: Re: FUCK YOU? promise or threat? UpdReq I agree. ..... ..... WM> lurkers spoke up and I WM> found I =was= convincing them. They just didn't waste WM> the bytes on a message WM> that said "I agree". (Don't you hate messages that say WM> that and nothing else?) (Just in case you were wondering what I was agreeing to... <*_->) WM> message that inspired all of this. It was a couple of lines saying "You WM> satanists, fuck you. You suck!" And that's =all=! While I'm quoting from WM> memory, that's almost exactly what s/he said. It's WM> amazing that a message that WM> took maybe five seconds (and no thought) to compose has WM> inspired so many hours WM> of debate. I can see from that how people might have jumped to the conclusion that the writer thought everyone on the board was a Satanist. Unqualified generalities tend to be interpreted as indicating that the writer generalizes the same way. I have seen five word statements and questions generate five page essays in print (in APAs -- sort of like BBSs on paper). Generally a lengthy comment or diatribe will use up all the possible comment hooks, leaving room only for "I agree" or "you're an as-- er... 'a jerk!'" 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Karl Lembke Area: MagickNet To: Chris Feldman 21 Jun 92 22:08:32 Subject: Re: Reverse Bigotry?? UpdReq KL> Make that SOME "Christians". CF> Can't agree. Plenty wrong with Christianity, too. Unless you're into a god CF> of fear and hate, of revenge and mutilation. Who says newborn babies are CF> as "bad" as Jim Jones or Pol Pot and must be "redeemed". Who wants you to CF> cut off the end of your son's penis. Who... CF> Aah, what's the use. Read it for yourself, if you've the stomach for it. What's interesting, though, is to read the Talmud and the Mishneh, and other commentaries on the Bible. While I object to circumcision myself, at the time it was canonized, it made a good deal of sense. It was an identifying tribal mark that was rather difficult to remove or obscure (without ruining the value of a slave). Maybe some Reconstructionist group will decide to do away with it on the grounds that it is no longer necessary. Indeed, if a time again comes when Jews are persecuted, and when they're the only group routinely circumcizing, Jewish law would demand that the practice cease. (Almost any law may be broken to save a life.) Likewise, I don't know the normative Jewish position on Original Sin, but there is an excellent book by Rabbi Maller, a local (to Hollywood, CA) rabbi, titled "God, Sex and the Kabbalah". In it, he makes the case that rather than a sin, the event in Eden was an elevation to sentience, and an assumption of responsibility for personal and spiritual growth. All in all, during the Rabbinic period, it came to be taught that the laws of the Torah were as bloody as they were so that people could practice looking for ways to gentle their spirit while keeping to their letter. The effect was that, by the first century BCE, capital punishment was almost impossible to actually administer, so essentially never occurred. (At least not imposed by Rabbinic courts.) Context is all. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Karl Lembke Area: MagickNet To: Peter Giordano 21 Jun 92 22:17:42 Subject: Reverse Bigotry?? Rec'd UpdReq I agree. (Maybe next time you'll quote whatever it is that prompts a given note...) 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: MadHatter Area: MagickNet To: Stephane Hubert 21 Jun 92 23:35:02 Subject: FUCK YOU? YOU SUCK? WHAT WOULD JE UpdReq This subject really belongs over in the gay sig. Geez. 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718 From: Tony Iannotti Area: MagickNet To: MadHatter 22 Jun 92 09:17:50 Subject: Re: FUCK YOU? YOU SUCK? WHAT WOULD JE Sent UpdReq -=In a missive of 21 Jun 92 23:35:02, MadHatter said to Stephane Hubert=- (regarding Re: FUCK YOU? YOU SUCK? WHAT WOULD JE) M> This subject really belongs over in the gay sig. Geez. Oh, come on. Surely the rest of us can indulge or be indulged as well? No Sex for Heteros!? ;-) ... Programmers get overlaid! 718499927771849992777184999277718499927771849992777184999277718