That not so great Great Dr Laura joke

[Pigwidgeon]

John: "Seeing as I *really* couldn't find any way that this should go 
on the main list, I decided to send it here for your amusement. Usual 
don't-take-it-too-seriously caveats apply, Mr Emptor, so don't go 
there :)"

Apparently I wrote: "<various nitpicky replies to the biblical 
translations used for the Dr Laura joke>"

John: "See, it's a Joke, as in the title "That Great Dr Laura JOKE". 
Funny-ha-ha. A rib-tickler, if you so please, except not in public, 
because that will get you arrested. Tickling ribs, bad plan."
And: "Anyway, yes, it's a joke. Hence its inclusion on the OT-CHATTER 
list where we're currently discussing...religion, specifically with 
regard to certain sects of a certain religion attempting to ban a 
certain book. An amusing parody of a certain celebrity who certainly 
belongs to a certain sect of said certain religion trying to ban said 
certain book is arguably on-topic on this off-topic list."

Yes it may be a joke, but not one that I found very amusing. I can 
see why it could be funny to some and appreciate that it is meant as 
nothing more than a response to one person's comments on religion 
(i.e. Dr Laura who I know nothing about). If I had seen the 
television programme in question then maybe I would find it amusing. 
I also agree that this is the place for such comments.

This does not, however, mean that I cannot, or should not, respond in 
the way I chose to do so. I merely pointed out a couple of 
inaccuracies in the message. If such a message is posted then I see 
no reason that people should not be able to reply as they see fit, as 
long as they do so in a way that respects the views of others and 
does not personally attack anyone.


And also: "(Oh, and when it says "Leviticus 20:20" with regard to 
eyesight...it's not talking about passage numbers.)"

You don't say. I never would have guessed! Here was me thinking they 
had just managed to quote the wrong passage.


Simon