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