Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site oliveb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!sun!idi!oliven!oliveb!rap
From: rap@oliveb.UUCP (Robert A. Pease)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Crowley's sense of humor.
Message-ID: <486@oliveb.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 12:02:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: oliveb.486
Posted: Wed Jul  3 12:02:01 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:43:31 EDT
References: <437@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5429@cbscc.UUCP>, <452@cmu-cs-k.ARPA>, <5458@cbscc.UUCP>, <464@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <5517@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: Olivetti ATC; Cupertino, Ca
Lines: 30

>>  = Tim Maroney
>   = Paul Dubuc

>>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.

>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.

>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.
-- 
					Robert A. Pease
    {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap