Bronwyn

i entirely take your point regarding that line - it is narrow minded and was deliberately so. I was exchanging posts with CJ and if you had read further you would see that I stated the following:

"I don't think prudes are born either - just a throwaway remark. Prudes are made by fear and ignorance."

Now I don't for a second think you are a prude, Bronwyn - while we disagree on Henson's work, I fully understand your position. The point I was trying to illustrate is that we, as a society, are motivated more by fear than anything else. Fear is utilised in religion, politics and business. There are many on OLO who do react from fear and ignorance eg, Runner, Gibo - Boaz is in a different league, being completely dishonest.

We are so disfunctional regarding our sexuality and most of it stems from ignorance and the fear factor of the 'bogeyman', in this case the paedophile.

I apologise for that remark, but wish you had read further before making your post.

I hadn't intended making a post today - going away for a few days due to family crisis, but felt before I left that I should let you know that I respect your contributions too much, to let you think I considered all people who object to Henson's work as the the same. I don't. It is this point that CJ and I were trying to address. If religion is not the reason, why do many atheists and agnostics find Henson vexing?

Cheers

*Boaz looks up at the exceeding high puplit where dear Fractelle..the high priestess of balance honesty and moderation is looking down at him saying*

"Boaz is in a different league, being completely dishonest."

Fractelle.. does that seem a nice thing to say about someone?

Note the word 'completely'.... that's rather final...

I'm going to recommend that defammatory post be deleted, because it is a definite disporportionate and blatant character assassination of a fellow participant here.

By all means SHOW me my error with fact and argument, but to write me off 100% as 'completely dishonest'.. boy oh boy I'll not let that kind of rubbish stand unchallenged.

It seems I've been censored, or am about to be.

Talk to you all in a week or so. Do be nice to each other and take care :)

BD,

For goodness sake, man. Calm down.

The comment you so object to was NOT that you were 100% dishonest - you are being somewhat hysterical. Go back and read it in context: you were not being accused of defrauding widows and orphans or holding up liquor stores. You were - and have been many times - cited as not being honest about your motivation for some of the appalling, hurtful and misinformed things you say.

The contention was that you were in a class of your own when it comes to denying that you are reacting in ignorance and fear. Time and time again people have called you on this and indeed provided instances, contradictions, and what they describe as "porkies". In my understanding a porky is a lie; which means that you are being accused of being dishonest each time that word is used - but about your motivations only.

When provided with cases to support these accusations your usual M.O. is to slide away and create another thread...repeating the same things and ignoring prior critics. Perhaps if you were to stand your ground and try to prove to your questioners that they were mistaken you would not leave yourself open to such charges.

To recommend that comment for deletion would mean you would have to go back over every comment in which you have been accused of "telling porkies" or lying to yourself or contradicting yourself and apply for deletion of those too.

It matters not that I and others tell you that our objections are not based so much in matters of theology as in your manner. Now do you see what we mean?

I'm sure that no-one doubts for a moment that you are an upright and law abiding citizen. Equally I'm sure that no-one for a moment interpreted the remark you took offense to as saying anything to the contrary.

An interesting tactic, Boaz.

>>I'm going to recommend that defammatory post be deleted, because it is a definite disporportionate and blatant character assassination of a fellow participant here.<<

With the greatest of respect, Boaz, you have been caught out in flagrant disregard of the truth so many times, it is positively disingenuous to complain when someone eventually comes up with the "L" word to describe you.

There are many here who are perpetually dismayed by the level of mischief you stir up in the name of Christianity. That you have now decided that the only way to silence them is to request that their input be deleted, is quite frankly an act of cowardice.

Your normal style, if you need to be reminded, is to cut and run whenever you run out of arguments to support a failed position. There are, even now, open threads from which you have simply walked away, not as a reaction to attacks on your person, but because your needling anti-Islam attacks become exposed for what they are: rabble-rousing, pure and simple.

This approach, however annoying it is to the rest of us, is vastly preferable to your whingeing that someone is being nasty to you.

The fascinating aspect of your contributions to this particular thread has been their total absence of substance. Given an open invitation to present the Christian perspective on what appears to be a moral and ethical issue, you backed off completely. Yet on many other occasions, you have chosen to introduce religion where no such invitstion has been forthcoming, or was appropriate.

Why such reticence?

Perhaps the fact that you are unable to turn the topic against Islam - since you clearly share its views on so many issues with sexual content - has caused the frustration, and the lashing out at your interlocutors.

Bronwyn, I am totally with you on this one.

CJ and Fractelle, with respect, labelling anyone who disagrees with you as a prude or only guided by fear and ignorance is insulting to people who might intelligently argue against the Henson photographs without any form of overt dogma - religious or otherwise.

CJ words like 'moral panic', 'prudishness', 'puritan' do you a disservice. "Puritan socialisation' is a put down tool; this issue has nothing to do with puritanism. How do I know this? Because I am far from puritan and yet found the Henson art inappropriate? How can this be? I am old enough to examine and reflect and I am not deluded. I have sketched nudes myself and admired other nude works.

Can you and other pro-Henson contributors not see that the sexualisation of children for some is unacceptable in any context? For some posters to argue that "I see nothing sexual in these photos" is a low form of attack in my view; as an implication that 'we' must be sick if we see these photos as sexual. For me that argument is 1)disingenuous 2)evasive of the issue and 3) an unfair depiction of anyone who disagrees with you. Someone who might argue that a pro-Henson poster is a paedophile is equally disengenuous and unacceptable.

Why do some of the pro-Henson posters' seem determed to undermine and ridicule in an effort to uphold their own moral stance on this issue. Is it because the issue is not as black and white as it would appear?

I thought PaulL posts on this topic were on the money. PaulL argued in a reasonable and intelligent manner and copped more abuse than he gave. And I don't agree with PaulL on all other issues but respect his skills at putting forward an opposing viewpoint.

I know this post won't make me popular but why this obsession with defending Henson. I just don't get it when there are many more important issues one could raise their ire at.