rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/01/70)
> Rich Rosen writes about Ray: > > >Ray Frank is brilliant. > > Thanks Rich [RAY] Don't mention it. I'm serious. Really, anyone who deliberately says such stupid and inane things as you do, engaging in the most awful self-debasement, all in the name of satirizing stupid knownothing rightwing positions, has got to have an incredible amount of guts. My hat would be off to you, if I wore a hat. (Side note to Ray: this statement gives you the opportunity to say in response: "You mean if you had a head, Rosen!" Don't waste it! I feel proud to be able to help you do your job!) -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jj@alice.UUCP (10/16/85)
<sarcasm alert> I like the way Ray Frank puts it: "Most of those crimes are totally substantiated"... He then goes on to admit that he's NOT studied the police reports, etc, since he doesn't have time, so HOW DOES HE KNOW? <I suspect it's a matter of faith, myself.:-( > Of course, to provide a TOTALLY symmetric argument, he then attacks the writer who commented that a lot of the crimes were based on hearsay for not having read all the police reports. Marvelous thinking, Ray! <exit sarcastic mode> I've read the whole act myself (My Congresscritter, who isn't on the committee, sent me a copy pronto, for the asking) and it's evident that the act goes beyond trying to ban "Satanism and Witchcraft", it goes to the length of LEGALLY DEFINING Witchcraft as "the use of <something to do with satanism>, sorcery, or calling on dark powers for evil intent" or something like that, (I left the text at home, regrettably) showing once and for all that the writer (Jesse Helms) does not know what a Wiccan is, or anything about Wicca (let alone other sorts of non-Christian religions). It's clear that the whole act is utterly unconstitutional, but the obvious effect is to bankrupt Wiccans, etc, by legal fees, as far as I can tell. Of course, Wicca isn't covered by the BILL's definition of witchcraft, as far as I can tell(I'm hardly an expert on Wicca, I've known two people who were involved with it, but ...) , but I'm sure someone will use the association with "witchcraft" as "evidence". The section of the record where Helms introduces the legislation is quite revealing, as he takes the opportunity to introduce a segment of 60 minutes on "satanism" as evidence. Such responsible, true-to-fact reporting, indeed... It is also interesting to note that the discussion is temporarily tabled to discuss the incoming hurricane, and the need for the Senate to adjourn for the day to stay clear of Gloria. One might even suspect that that's why the amendment got passed! Frankly, I'm writing both of my Senators in NJ, asking why they voted for it, by default. I'm curious to see what they say, since at least one of them is an avowed "liberal Democrat". Feh! -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "... who stole the keeshka, someone call the cops!" (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/17/85)
> <sarcasm alert> > I like the way Ray Frank puts it: > "Most of those crimes are totally substantiated"... > > He then goes on to admit that he's NOT studied the police reports, > etc, since he doesn't have time, so HOW DOES HE KNOW? > <I suspect it's a matter of faith, myself.:-( > Of course, > to provide a TOTALLY symmetric argument, he then attacks > the writer who commented that a lot of the crimes were > based on hearsay for not having read all the police > reports. Marvelous thinking, Ray! > <exit sarcastic mode> [JJ] Don't you realize who is REALLY being sarcastic? Ray Frank is one of the most persistent satirists on the net (with his brilliant attempts to make every position he offers look extremely stupid), spotlighting the fact that satire that isn't labelled as such is BOUND to be interpreted as reality (how can ANY satire outdo the REAL opinions some people post?). Frankly, I'm surprised you bit into this one. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/20/85)
> <sarcasm alert> > I like the way Ray Frank puts it: > "Most of those crimes are totally substantiated"... > > He then goes on to admit that he's NOT studied the police reports, > etc, since he doesn't have time, so HOW DOES HE KNOW? > <I suspect it's a matter of faith, myself.:-( > Of course, > to provide a TOTALLY symmetric argument, he then attacks > the writer who commented that a lot of the crimes were > based on hearsay for not having read all the police > reports. Marvelous thinking, Ray! > <exit sarcastic mode> [JJ] Don't you realize who is REALLY being sarcastic? Ray Frank is one of the most persistent satirists on the net (with his brilliant attempts to make every position he offers look extremely stupid), spotlighting the fact that satire that isn't labelled as such is BOUND to be interpreted as reality (how can ANY satire outdo the REAL opinions some people post?). Frankly, I'm surprised you bit into this one. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/21/85)
Rich Rosen writes about Ray:
>Ray Frank is brilliant.
Thanks Rich