From: nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date:  6 Oct 92 15:19:11 GMT

In <1992Sep30.191952.10602@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:

>In <nyikos.717793669@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>In <usglkrx.717686544@gsusgi1.gsu.edu> usglkrx@gsusgi2.gsu.edu (Lori K. Rothman) writes:

>>>nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>>>>In <1992Sep25.211600.23804@coopsol.com> gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga) writes:

>>>>><1992Sep18.233054.14674@noao.edu> forgach@noao.edu (Suzanne Forgach) said:
>>>>>>From article by iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski):
>>>>>>> In article mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price) writes:
>>>>>>> >In nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
>>>>>>> >    <...> the fact that Suzanne
>>>>>>> >used the word "crucified" to refer to the justifiable tongue-lashing
>>>>>>> >Christ gave those who debased His temple trivializes the agony and
>>>>>>> >suffering He underwent in His death and spiritual separation from His
>>>>>>> >Father.

>>>>>Suzanne seems to ignore the castigation of other Christians who take her
>>>>>to task for trivializing their god's contributions.  I notice she doesn't
>>>>>apologize for it.

>>>>Get with it, Gordon!  Don't you see how Ivan has exposed M. Price's 
>>>>"castigation" for the hoax that it is?  And I've addressed this
>>>>"castigation" myself several times.


>>>Well, just to be fair, I asked my aunt what she thought of Suzanne's
>>>"joke".  My aunt is 78 years old, goes to church every Sunday, doesn't
>>>drink, etc.  Maybe not a typical Christian, but one who takes her 
>>>religion seriously.  She told me that she felt Suzanne's use of
>>>the word was "disrespectful".  She thought that the statement was "in
>>>very bad taste".  The subject was "nothing to joke about".
>>>I read her the statement that M. Price wrote, and she felt that
>>>it was a very nice way of putting it.

>>Did you read to her M. Price's original comment which elicited
>>Suzanne's sarcastic [but sarcasm directed at M. Price] remark?
>>M. Price accused Jesus of having "white hot flashes" and said
>>"think of how those Scribes and Pharisees must have suffered."

>     Oh boy, oh boy, let me please!  Duuhhh Peter, we've spoken about
>reading comprehension before.

This was a case of forgetfulness, not reading comprehension.

> Next time, read the name next to the
>heading, or try reading the signature. Then you might have noticed that
>the "White hot" rage comment was not mine, but (I think) Lori's.Get with
>it, please.

You're wrong, Price, but I was forgetful.  The name of the person who
made that comment had been deleted, and I agree it was not you, and
I apologize for the mistake.  I could check my records to see who it
really was.  It does NOT appear above: if it did, it would appear
with at least four more >> 's than anything you see here. 

What you did was, in response to Suzanne's rejoinder, to say that
you found this use of "crucifixion" blasphemous and demanded an
apology.  I have yet to see you say that you are a Christian, or
why you found HER statement blasphemous and not the one she was
responding to.

>>Suzanne's rejoinder, putting the "suffering of the Scribes and
>>Pharisees" into perspective, was, "Oh, yeah, he really crucified
>>them."

>>>Maybe M. Price wasn't serious, but it doesn't really matter.  There are
>>>people who feel that way.

Note that M. Price does not enlighten the reader on this.  True,
Lori says it does not really matter, but it does to me, because
Suzanne has been slandered with an accusation of being blasphemous,
and the slander has been foisted on Lori and her aunt and heaven only 
knows how many other people.

And I don't think Lori's aunt thinks it does not matter whether
Price was serious ("nothing to joke about", see above) or whether
he was perpetrating a slander ("very nice way of putting it", see
above.)

>>But think of the context.  After making his initial disrespectful
>>comment, M. Price donned sheep's clothing, and your aunt saw only
>>the sheep and not the wolf inside.

>     This statement is not correct. In more than one way.

Only in the sense that the "disrespectful" comment was your accusing
Suzanne of being blasphemous.  I stand by the rest.

Peter Nyikos

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:39676 talk.religion.misc:17490 alt.atheism:18256