Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxn!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!cbnap!cbneb!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Re: Crowley's sense of humor. Message-ID: <5552@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 11:04:09 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5552 Posted: Tue Jul 9 11:04:09 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 08:38:40 EDT References: <437@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5429@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 43 >>> = Tim Maroney >> = Paul Dubuc > = Robert Pease >>>As I said, all the secrecy in the book, including this joke, is on a single >>>subject. The reason for the secrecy is Christian attitudes toward the >>>subject of secrecy, and the psychological dangers of the method. >> >>The second reason might make sense, but why is someone's attitude toward >>the subject of secrecy a reason for secrecy? > >Maybe I can help clarify what Tim is saying (or at least what I think >he is saying). Replace the phrase "subject of secrecy" with "subject >of the secrecy" and it should make more sense. Ok, I guess it does make more sense. Is that what you really meant, Tim? >>So why does Crowley cover a relatively minor taboo by appearing to advocate >>murder? > >There is not any reference to murder at all. Only to sacrifice, and >we all know that there are many forms of sacrifice. The readers are >left to draw their own conclusions. I said "appearing to advocate murder". What do you call a sacrifice with a "victim"? Are we playing juggling games with semantics here? (I'd still like an answer to the original question, if it's allowed an answer). >>BTW, I think "joke" implies something funny. I still think Crowley's wasn't, >>but at least he gets off the hook for advocating murder in this case. > >Maybe calling it a joke wasn't the best description possible, but you >should be able to see that many people use the word "joke" to indicate >that they are not really serious. Yeah, you're right. I guess I was being too picky there. Considering the subject of the "joke" however, I would hope that I wouldn't just be asked to believe Crowley wasn't serious and also be refused an explaination. That's the whole bone I had to pick with Tim. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd