Re: => 17 Catholic High School Sluts in Pregnancy Pact <= Christian Family Values !

Larry <x@xxxxx> wrote in
news:x-3138CB.20132128062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <BZz9k.11712$jI5.8372@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Deadrat <a@xxxxx> wrote:

Larry <x@xxxxx> wrote in
news:x-35976F.19085828062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

In article <pmy9k.8321$89.7329@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Deadrat
<a@xxxxx> wrote:

Larry <x@xxxxx> wrote in
news:x-A171B6.03343428062008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

Let's ask him. Deadrat: Do you think that upon identifying a
woman as a witch, encouragment to "get the stake and kerosene
ready!" is a call for violence, or simply sarcasm?

<snip/>

I've given this some thought as I've stayed out of this thread,
but since you asked, here's my (possibly over-intellectualized)
conclusions.

The question comes to what it takes to be offensive. Does it take
an offended party?

There are certainly a convention-hall full of them in Jonez' case.

Well, as you say, Jonez is nothing if not a provacateur who hides
behind his multiple names to avoid all accountability for what he
says.

Does he? The name changes are transparent to all but the clueless,
aren't they? And what accountability?

To the clueless. My theory is that he has multiple names because he
thinks he can trick the clueless into thinking others support him.

My theory is that it's best not to have theories about what other people
really think. It's hard enough to parse their words.

But there has to be an element of repetitive behavior that comes
into play. If someone makes an isolated comment that could be
interpreted to be racist or bigoted, but the person has never
before made such statements and there's no reason to believe they
meant it that way, it's more likely they misspoke, were
misunderstood, were telling a joke, or being sarcastic.

However, if someone has a pattern and history of posting news
stories in which he criticizes the religion, gender, ethnicity,
race, and the like, of the people in the stories, and attacks
people who post on usenet not on the basis of their posts, but on
the basis of their religion, gender, ethnicity, race, and the like,
I think the only logical conclusion is that he attacks and insults
people based on their religion, gender, ethnicity, race, and the
like.

He likes to trash talk Christians (on just about anything) and
sometimes Jews (mostly about Palestinians), but I haven't noticed
much on the other classes. But does he hate Christians or is he
trying to point out the hypocrisy of Christians? Is he trying to
draw Christians into "unChristian" counter-attacks, the more to show
that Christianity is a failure given its proponents' actions. I'm
not defending him. I don't know, and since he's not much given to
explication, I don't think I can find out.

Well, his few attempts at explications involve amazing declarations of
moral obligations regarding fires in crowded theaters, so its little
wonder he doesn't do so more often.

That was a slip, and it will be a long time before I tire of reminding
him about it. As long as he just posted his canonical list and called
you a liar for reasons no one could understand, he at least had people
puzzled as to what it was all about. So much blather and all it was
about was a missing adverb that everyone understood was meant.

If he did not mean his comments to be offensive, once he found out
they were being interpreted that way, he would apologize or explain
himself (much as tjab is blindly doing for him). Seeing as he is
not doing those things, one can only conclude it is because he
believes in and stands by his comments.

By your standards, maybe. Perhaps he feels that demonstrating the
hypocrisy of religion is more important than politesse. I don't
know.

Yet if he truly believed he had something of substantive importance to
say, he'd come out and say it. At least he would if he was interested
in substantive discussion of the issue.

Sure, go ahead and be rational. But that's not how the Prof operates,
which may make him irritating but not necessarily a bigot.

But
what about Bret's posts to me in which he calls me a dumb loser?
I'm not offended. It seems clear that Bret's trying his best to
offend me and that he think he actually has "vexed" me, but that's
not true.
Partly because it's hard for me to take offense from someone so
ignorant, and partly because I don't care enough about anybody
posting on misc.legal to take offense. So is Bret offensive?

As for your comparison to Bret, there's no question he is intending
to insult you. That you're not actually insulted goes to show you
have thick skin or that his insults (much like his posts) are
completely ineffective. But that doesn't mean he isn't insulting
you.

Sort of a tree-falling-in-the-forest kinda thing, though.

There's
no logical basis for calling his posts "sarcasm" or anything other
than insults.

There's no logical basis for his posts, period.

Now you've got it! Thus I'd say they provide no basis for logical
conclusions about him either. YMMV.
.