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