Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
alt.religion.scientology
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion Humor vs. Joking & Degrading
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Wolf  
View profile  
 More options Jun 1 1998, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
From: Wolf <wolft...@micron.net>
Date: 1998/06/01
Subject: Re: Humor vs. Joking & Degrading
Reply to author | Forward | Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Tommy_spooges...@xs.net wrote:

> Wolf wrote:
> > As for dark humor being J&D'ing... here I'll disagree. To some extent
> > all humor is J&D. Be it shaggy dog stories or Henny Youngman one-liners.
> > Humor points up the rideculous, the pompous, the stupid, the
> > self-serving and the host of other traits we find easily in others and
> > disregard in ourselves. I'm fairly sure that's what Hubbard meant by
> > stating that laughter is 'rejection'. But I don't buy it as anything
> > even close to an absolute.

>     As usual, Heinlein stated it better.  In SIASL, the young man raised
> by Martians had returned to Earth,

<snip>

>        Bottom line: We laugh because we see something so painful that we
> *must* laugh, ere we cry. This is how we deal with man's inhumanity to
> man. As a critic, I see much about Scientology that is laughable - and
> sad.

Speak for yourself ;~)

Much of the true value of laughter and humor is that we don't often
understand why it's funny and if we don't have the proper context, it
isn't funny. It's a discussion where opinion rules.

> > You'd think if the
> > ARS-snobs were really bright, they'd have come up with a new joke by
> > now...
>    And if the Scientology apologists were borderline intelligent, they'd
> have come up with a new doctrine in "handling" critics. But they can't
> -  can they ?

I'm not sure what your point is. For starters, I don't have a clue what
a 'scn apologist' is, I gather that's an opinion-laden arena as well. As
for Scn itself, it has been roundly criticized, attacked, sued, yelled
at, picketed and denigrated for nearly 50 years. And the last time I
checked it was still present and accounted for. There are entire nations
that didin't have that much longevity.

Now... you were saying something about the ineffectiveness of their
doctrine?

Wolf


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google