[speechlesstx]

Your right - I don't know why I keep going on about it.

Then stop it!! You're supposed to be agreeing with me by now, LOL ;)

OK, just a few brief remarks...

And here you're still focusing on the language, not the overall themes of the play. Is the language brash?

Nope, not just the language, the content is an affront to my faith. A school is not the place to offend certain groups of people - we've already determined that with the Mark Twain references. Is it OK to offend those those in the religious community but not blacks?

Interestingly enough, the two links you gave... shows that the people in the first link removed some content surrounding the "I don't believe in god" line. I'm not saying that excuses the work, but it makes the group a little dishonest in my eyes.

Oh come on, that's a stretch. The North Shore Student Advocacy group just gave examples and said "(THIS LIST IS ONLY A SAMPLE)." The other photocopied pages. I see no reason to suspect dishonesty based on that.

And I believed I qualified my statements by saying "I don't care. I said nothing of the rest of the world. And I still stand by what I said - it is possible to disagee and/or be offended by something and not protest it.

Sure, no problem. And I said "we" as in it would not have been an issue in the first place. When you're talking public funds the rules are different, the taxpayers have the right - and duty - to object to offensive material. Just ask the ACLU.

One man's trash is another's treasure. Some people equate Harlequin romance novels to porn, some think Playboy is art. A photo of a nude woman - porn or art? It's subjective, which is why that quote serves an individual's purpose, not a concrete purpose.

I'm reasonable, I do think there is a difference between tasteful nudity and porn - and also between romance and pure wanton lust, lewdness, lascivious(ness) (the author of the work's own word). Using that word in the way the author did tells me a lot about his intent.

[jillianleab]

Nope, not just the language, the content is an affront to my faith. A school is not the place to offend certain groups of people - we've already determined that with the Mark Twain references. Is it OK to offend those those in the religious community but not blacks?

I didn't say it's OK to offend anyone - I said it's OK to take the book out of classes if the parents don't want it there. But that language and that content does not mean the play has no literary merit.

Oh come on, that's a stretch. The North Shore Student Advocacy group just gave examples and said "(THIS LIST IS ONLY A SAMPLE)." The other photocopied pages. I see no reason to suspect dishonesty based on that.

I see it differently. I'm shocked, how about you? :D

Sure, no problem. And I said "we" as in it would not have been an issue in the first place. When you're talking public funds the rules are different, the taxpayers have the right - and duty - to object to offensive material. Just ask the ACLU.

Where did I say people shouldn't have the option to object to offensive material? Where did I say this book should be taught in schools or be on school reading lists? You're implying that I'm outraged by this book being removed from the required reading list, or outraged that there is outrage about it. I'm not. I'm saying it is possible it has literary merit, and if it does, it deserves consideration for the classroom, but that it's up to the school board, the parents, the students and the teachers together to decide if it is included in the lesson plan

I'm reasonable, I do think there is a difference between tasteful nudity and porn - and also between romance and pure wanton lust, lewdness, lascivious(ness) (the author of the work's own word). Using that word in the way the author did tells me a lot about his intent.

You said "I'm reasonable" - and that's my point. YOU might be, but someone else might not be, and a statement such as "I know it when I see it" is so totally open ended, it might as well not even be there. For example (trust me, I wish I were kidding), I know several women who would throw their husbands out of the house and consider divorce for owning a Playboy, and at least one who gets furious if her husband even glances in the direction of the local Hooters; is that "reasonable"? And for the record, these are not conservative church-going saintly women. They consider Playboy and Hooters to be about as offensive at it gets - is that "reasonable"? I don't think so. Then again, my hubby has had a subscription for the past three years. It that reasonable? I think it is - but it's all subjective. So the statement "I know it when I see it" is not cut and dry, it's subjective and it serves the purpose of the individual, which does nothing to serve the general population.

But moving on to the words the author used - it's still possible for a piece to be written in such a way as to be erotic and still have merit. This play has received a Tony Award, a Pulitzer Prize, it's been acclaimed by the Kennedy Center, and several drama organizations. Do you think all of these groups are mistaken or in on a pro-homosexual porn movement? Or is it possible the play has merit and is acceptable reading material in the right place at the right time?