Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: O My God: The Police
Message-ID: <956@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 3-Aug-84 12:48:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.956
Posted: Fri Aug  3 12:48:45 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 03:24:53 EDT
References: <892@pucc-h> <899@pucc-h>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 25

> Rsk the Wombat:  It seems that all you have to "contribute" to this group is
> reflex defiance of God -- i.e. nothing but short flames, which is what your
> articles tend to be.  I'd rather read even a defiant Rich Rosen article than
> such stuff as yours (not that I enjoy his stuff, either); at least he puts
> some work into his attacks rather than just responding like a computer --
> i.e. if anything favorable to God appears, you automatically respond (as if
> you were programmed to) with the word "bullshit" or something very similar.
> Such articles add nothing of value to this group; I recommend that you
> forbear from posting them in future. [SARGENT]

I guess I should thank you, Jeff, but I'm not sure...

I thought about posting something about the original article on "O My God",
but decided not to.  (Yes, this DOES happen occasionally.)  I found it quite
extraordinary that the original author got a completely opposite message out
of the song from what I got out of it (and also, apparently, from what Mr.
Sumner [alias Sting] had intended).  Just shows to go about art:  you can
never predict how someone is going to interpret it; remember Manson and the
"white album"? ...  It also could say something about interpretations of
certain books, but I'll let that one pass (for now) ...

[Was THIS one of my "attacks"?  "*even* a defiant Rich Rosen article"? Hmm... ]
-- 
Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought.
			Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr