OldGreyEagle 5 Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 OK, I can accept the gays, lawyers and the ACLU, but not the accordian player Link to post Share on other sites
acco40 95 Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Not a good summer for Scouting - if God is gay, why was an eight year old girl killed at a BOy Scout camp in New Jersey recently? Come on fellas, the article is purely satire and should not be viewed as BSA bashing. Are we that humor impaired? Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 Leave the accordion, take the canoli. Don't Shoot, I'm Only the ACLU Accordion Player. You Can tune a Lawyer But You Can't Tune an Accordion. I got millions of 'em! Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 OGE says: OK, I can accept the gays, lawyers and the ACLU, but not the accordian player and Ed says: Leave the accordion, take the canoli. Don't Shoot, I'm Only the ACLU Accordion Player. You Can tune a Lawyer But You Can't Tune an Accordion. I got millions of 'em! Two can play at this game, Ed. With apologies to the late Warren Zevon: Send lawyers, gays and accordians Or, to move from a title to a lyric: Send lawyers, gays and money, The accordian has hit the fan... Link to post Share on other sites
LovetoCamp 9 Posted August 11, 2005 Share Posted August 11, 2005 I went home with the lawyer, the way I always do... How was I to know oh oh, she was an accordian player too? HA Link to post Share on other sites
fgoodwin 23 Posted August 11, 2005 Author Share Posted August 11, 2005 acco40: if I changed "bashing" to "attacking", would that characterization be more acceptable? Because that comes directly from the definition of "satire". Link to post Share on other sites
acco40 95 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 So we agree that the article was satire (regardless of ones view of how humorous or not the article was? If so, who or what does the satire attack or bash? IMO, it pokes fun at those who somehow feel God "blesses" or favors their organization because they are "right" or more moral than others. The hot button issues of God (religion), gays, and politics (Bush/Iraq) are trotted out. However, being an equal opportunity satire it pokes fun at gays (see YMCA, Will & Grace, etc.) too. Now, a satire I would like to see is one about Jenna and Barbara enlisting to go do their duty to fight terrorism. Link to post Share on other sites
fgoodwin 23 Posted August 12, 2005 Author Share Posted August 12, 2005 "Humorous" or not, the article is very clearly an attack on the BSA. But given its distasteful content, I'm not surprised that others who oppose BSA policies spin the article in such a way as to distance themselves from it. Link to post Share on other sites
Zahnada 11 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Fred, Your purpose for posting this article is truly misled. I don't see how this offers any insight into BSA's opponents. I could go to a dozen hate sites, find articles that scream that all gays should be rounded up and executed because they defy God's plan. These sites would also offer up as evidence that AIDS is a biblical plague sent down to cleanse the Earth of the gay infection. But should I post such articles and say, "This is to remind us what the supporters of BSA's membership policy think"? Of course not. And anyone who does try to post such trash will be ripped apart by this forum. Are you really paranoid that people out there will start believing God has chosen to smite scouting? I think there's still general confusion as to why this ridiculous article was deemed relevant. Link to post Share on other sites
fgoodwin 23 Posted August 12, 2005 Author Share Posted August 12, 2005 Z: I could always respond that if one doesn't like the post, one is perfectly free to skip it. But that would be too easy a cop-out. Had the article been written by Hans Zeiger as a "satire" praising the BSA and condemning gays, atheists, liberals, etc., it would certainly have been held up as a typical example of hate-speech by the religious right. So obviously, bashing BSA and its conservative policies is OK, because its just "satire", but bashing gays, atheists and liberals is wrong because that's hate-speech, right? Bringing out that dichotomy through the posts that reflect the truth of it, is one of the reasons I posted the article. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 The article isn't BSA bashing. It is poking fun at the idea that just because the Oath & Law refer to God doesn't mean bad things won't happen. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
fgoodwin 23 Posted August 12, 2005 Author Share Posted August 12, 2005 Forgive me, Ed. I should have said "attacking" not "bashing", in accordance with the definition of satire. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Bashing, attacking whatever. It ain't neither! Baron von Accordian & The ACLU Lawyer~ Link to post Share on other sites
fgoodwin 23 Posted August 12, 2005 Author Share Posted August 12, 2005 Ed, the article / satirizes / bashes / attacks / "pokes fun at" / (insert your verb of choice here) / BSA at the expense of four dead Scouters -- that's over the line in my book, whatever you call it. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted August 12, 2005 Share Posted August 12, 2005 Then, Fred, why did you post it? If you don't like satire, don't read it! Molehill meet the mountain! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now