jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (02/25/86)
I apologize for the length of the following article, but brevity hasn't worked very well, so... I will say at this point that I'm disappointed that Mr. Kent did not choose to continue our discussion of the relationship of appreciation to criticism. I think that would have been much more interesting than what he did offer. > If you were actually interested in the truth, rather than in attacking my >views, "Rather"?! I attack your views because I believe them to represent untruth. I'm sorry you find that so exasperating, but I don't really understand why you do. It's what happens in any debate. > you would have noticed that about half of those who have *disagreed* >with me nonetheless reject Fr. Woolley's interpretation of the joke. The >humor, they say, is in the naivete of the prostitute's reaction. (They >maintain that it's not offensive because it refers only to one individual.) I have not seen *any* article, to remember, as you describe. But, it may be as you say. The net does not always reliably transmit every article to every site. In fact, there is a theory which states than any active site thinks it's the most active, becuase a large number of articles from distant sites never appear there. :-) Perhaps I was wrong to say "near 100%", but I argued from the evidence I had in hand (well, perhaps I should say, on disk). > Again, if you were interested in the truth, you would notice that it is >*not* reasonable to infer that those people who find a putatively offensive >joke funny are representative of the net population as a whole. More correctly: If I were interested in agreeing with you, I would believe the inference is not reasonable. Look, I have a certain faith in the common sense of most net people (surprise!). When I see that a fair number of posters think a certain joke is at least moderately funny, and a fair number of posters think that it's offensive and not funny at all, I have two choices regarding those who are laughing. I can say that they are sickos, or I can say that they're the average non-sicko netter, and so they must not have heard the offensive message in the joke. You can conclude they're sickos if it pleases you, but considering the complexity of the average human being, an attitude toward one joke is pretty flimsy evidence. So I assume the other until I know differently. If you have any real evidence that this attitude is unreasonable, bring it forth. By the way, it is equally (un)reasonable to infer that those people who find a putatively funny joke offensive are representative of the net. Just in case you were ever tempted. :-) [begin sarcasm mode:] But surely, Mr. Kent, your comment is not motivated by a concern for the reputation of the net population as a whole. Why, just a few articles ago, you commented that people on the net seemed to have about the intelligence of your pet mollusk. Why the sudden change of heart? [end sarcasm mode] > I have no idea what your motives are, but the pursuance >of reasoned debate clearly isn't among them. (Feel free to complain about the >"gratuitous insult" of this posting, as you did earlier about Nancy Parsons'. In context, I found these statements grimly humorous. "Reasoned debate" is just what Mr. Kent's most recent article is not. Now, I'm not going to claim I should get any awards for it, but I invite net readers to read my previous (complete) article on this subject*, and see for themselves how close it came to that description. Perhaps one of you can even tell me just what his evidence is for my unreason, since he didn't see fit to give it. I complained about Nancy Parsons's remark because, based on many articles she submitted several months ago, I have the kind of respect for her intelligence and perception such that when she accuses me of racism, it hurts. I have no complaints about your posting, Mr. Kent. It gave me an opportunity to explain myself which I otherwise might not have had. And it showed you to be somewhat less than the whiz at rational argument you seem to fancy yourself to be. Jeff Winslow "I'd rather have Scotch" - Socrates * Unfortunately, due to a hiccup in rn, I wasn't able to post the present article as a followup. The previous article was under the subject "Re: traditional values, Salome, and a Siberian joke at the end".