Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-h
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:ab3
From: ab3@pucc-h (Vombatus Hirsutus)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Clearing it all up -- Response to Jeff
Message-ID: <894@pucc-h>
Date: Sun, 29-Jul-84 15:48:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: pucc-h.894
Posted: Sun Jul 29 15:48:57 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jul-84 00:36:33 EDT
Organization: Purdue, THE Indiana University
Lines: 73


	Well, it's five days later and I'm still pissed, so here goes.

	Why the hell don't you learn how to read, Jeff?

	Let's look back at the original article:

>	Well, Paul, goin' from

>>	[Redbook Survey]
>>
>>	Those women who rated themselves as "deeply religious" were
>>	the ones who enjoyed sex the most.

>	to

>>	Since the survey was conducted in this country, we may reasonably
>>	assume that the religious women were Christian religion women, no?
>>	Therefore, one might observe that the nonsense about the Christian
>>	ethic is that Christians are the ones with an unhealthy attitude
>>	about sex.

>	is one of the blatant pieces of total bullshit I've seen in a while.

	Note, Jeff: 
	I didn't say his conclusion was wrong.
	I didn't say that the survey was wrong.
	All I said was that going from the stated premise to the stated
	conclusion was bullshit.  It was, and still is, precisely that.

	I think if you apply a miniscule portion of logic to the problem,
	that this will become apparent to you.

	Now, let's look at some of the things you said later, when you decided
to go off on another one of *your* religious bullshit binges:

> Rsk:  Why don't you want to believe this?

	It makes not a quark's worth of difference whether I *want* to believe
this or not; either it's right or it's not, and your automatic assumption that
I disagreed with the *content* of the conclusion was vastly mistaken.

> You want to go on with your lifestyle which cheapens sex by allowing, indeed
> encouraging, it in other contexts; so if anything which might challenge that
> lifestyle and suggest that maybe it's not the best after all comes along,
> you respond antagonistically (use of the word "bullshit" is a sufficient sign
> of antagonism) -- despite the fact that, having never (to my knowledge) lived
> any kind of a religious life, and having never been married, YOU DON'T EVEN
> KNOW whether sex is better in the context of "sexual freedom" or in the
> context of deeply loving marriage.

	You want antagonism?  Okay.  Fuck you.  What gives you the right
to criticize my lifestyle, and to claim that the way I live "cheapens" sex?
You don't have the foggiest notion of what it's even all about, do you?
How the hell do you even know what I do in the privacy of my bedroom, huh?
And how do you have the gall to claim that I've never "lived any kind of
religious life"?  Have you been following me for the last 27 years?

	And what the hell do YOU know about sex?  When was the last time you
experienced it, huh?

	I suggest that you stick with your religious propaganda, and with
your comfortable way of living, and leave those of us who choose to do
otherwise the hell alone; I'm not asking you to understand, 'cause I don't
think you're capable of it...just don't be such an asshole, and don't you
ever even DARE say something like this about me ever again.
-- 
---Rsk

UUCP: { decvax, icalqa, ihnp4, inuxc, sequent, uiucdcs  } !pur-ee!rsk
      { decwrl, hplabs, icase, psuvax1, siemens, ucbvax } !purdue!rsk

So long, and thanks for all the fish.