[Vision2020] Reply to Critics from a Villian

[Tbertruss at aol.com]

Wayne et. al.

Yeah, well, "wifely duties" can be interpreted an endless number of ways.  

But I think that the "sexual obligations" of marriage interpretation would be a very common one, especially in the context of the sexual behavior of prison life with cell-mates, with context being critical to suggestion of the meaning of words.  Not many prisoners have "celestial prison brides" for cell-mates, as you wrote, though I agree this phrase suggests a non-sexual relationship.  For a careful reader the word "celestial" would lead them to question the sex act interpretation of "wifely duties" in your post.

Still, Wayne, you knew very well that this prison sex life image was suggested by your post.  Though you used wording that suggested other interpretations, you are a bad, bad boy, and must now stay after school and write 500 times on the blackboard: 

"I will not play games with the minds of V2020 readers regarding implications of rape in my posts."

If you type this 500 times and post the results to V2020 you are absolved!

Ted Moffett, altar boy




In a message dated 8/1/2004 7:57:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Art Deco aka W. Fox" <deco at moscow.com> writes:

>All, (oops, incomplete message sent previously)
>
>I have been away for two weeks.  My!  What a lively two weeks on Vision 2020 it
>has been!
>
>I have a short reply to critics of one of my previous posts.
>
>
>
>
>Woman
>
>What do you see when you look at the illustration above?
>
>For the illustration there are at least two possible whole perceptual
>interpretations.  Depending on a person's temperament, perceptual set, and other
>factors a person without prompting will at first only perceive one of the
>possible interpretations.
>
>Some people are unable to perceive more than one interpretation even after both
>interpretations have been unambiguously described.  In ordinary language such a
>condition is called "perceptual rigidity" or "perceptual blindness" if the
>inability to see both interpretations persists.
>
>A similar problem exists with certain ambiguously written prose constructions.
>A reader may immediately seize upon one interpretation without considering that
>other interpretations are possible.  Ignoring other possible interpretations is
>call "conceptual rigidity".  The inability to grasp the other possible
>interpretation(s) after they have hinted at or pointed out is sometimes called
>"conceptual blindness".  The interpretation a reader chooses reveals something
>(sometimes a lot) about the reader (just like an interpretation of a Rorshark
>Inkblot also does).
>
>I will admit I played a villainous trick just before leaving two weeks ago.  (My
>personality has a streak of Saki's Clovis Sangrail, Reginald, and Bertie Van
>Tahn in it.)  I wrote and posted a purposely ambiguous short item (which is
>reposted at the end of this post) during the feeding frenzy generated by
>self-styled "saint" and Cult Master Douglas Wilson's revelation as a common tax
>cheat by Rose Huskey and Sandra Lund.
>
>A careful reading will reveal that there are at least four possible
>interpretations of the words "wifely duties" in the context of the post:
>
>1.    Minor housekeeping (cell-keeping) chores such as bed making, cleaning,
>etc.
>2.    Prayer and supplication offerings.
>3.    Male-Male sexual intercourse:
>        a.    Consensual
>        b.    Rape
>
>A careful reader might have suspected a game afoot after reading the words
>"natural calling" (given that Wilson masquerades as the agent of the Christian
>God) and "celestial" (which often means pure and pious).
>
>A careful reader may have noted that just because participation in any of the
>acts listed above would be demanded by Mad-dog does not mean that the demandee
>(Wilson) would not object, mind, or even relish performing them.
>
>Which interpretation did you make of the post and how many different ways did it
>affect you?  Depending on your interpretation, did you secretly feel some
>delight or amusement despite a feeling of horror at such a reaction?  What does
>your sequence of reactions say about your real persona?
>
>I played this game once before with an Agatha Christe parody.  I didn't think I
>could do it again without being called out; apparently I was wrong.  I am a
>scoundrel without doubt, but, I hope, not without some entertainment and
>edification value.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Wayne
>
>Art Deco  (Wayne Fox)
>deco at moscow.com
>
>
>Previous post:
>___________________________________________________
>Captain, et al,
>
>I mean no disrespect, but I do not think Cult Master Wilson (aka The Corpulent
>Capon) will have time for the activities you and others predict for him in
>prison.
>
>If the rumors overheard at WalMart and Mingles are true, then he will be very
>busy at his natural calling.
>
>The  rumors:  Several diverse Latah County groups are raising money to arrange
>to have Mad-dog as a cellmate for Wilson.  Mad-dog will take Wilson as his
>celestial prison bride.  Being generous, not only will Mad-dog will frequently
>demand that Wilson perform his/her wifely duties, but will also unstintingly
>share his bride in this respect among his many prison associates.
>
>These almost continual activities will provide Wilson with a host of splendid
>learning opportunities.  He can test at first hand the truth of his doctrines
>calling for wifely/female submission and subjugation!  Some of his other
>doctrines will be well tested also.
>
>Just a messenger,
>
>Wayne
>
>Art Deco  (Wayne Fox)
>deco at moscow.com
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>