From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Is it Christian values or chavinism?
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:27:15 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York

In <nyikos.718384751@milo.math.scarolina.edu> nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:

>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:
>>>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,

     In what way?

> 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.

    See my other posts on this thread.

>>>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.

     Hmmm, interesting. I 'slandered' Suzanne by accusing her of
blasphemy (even though the accusation was typed, and therefore strictly
libel), yet you repeatedly accuse me of insincerity, duplicity and
slander, seemingly without concern. A fascinating double standard.

>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.

     That is not what I meant. Read your statement very carefully.
Lateral thinking, Petie.

                                                      MP
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:40534 talk.politics.misc:49490 alt.sex:31914 alt.rush-limbaugh:6522 alt.politics.elections:15127 alt.politics.clinton:8445 alt.politics.bush:7707