🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <427@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (Michael Ross) writes:
>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 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.
    Agreed, you did it again this time. But that didn't stop you from referring
to an "explanation" or calling it simplistic. You invoke two postings. Neither
is an analysis of my earlier posting. Both argue against positions which I 
explicitly rejected. (I don't claim that jokes involving rape cannot be funny:
I claim that Fr. Woolley's posting was offensive and unfunny. So the murder
analogy is irrelevant, and the S.N.L. posting bizarrely irrelevant - the sketch
seemed to be attacking corporate media tokenism.) 
    So put up [coherent criticism] or shut up.       
                                           ak
"Salome, dear, NOT in the fridge."