|
|
 |
| To: david@thejewishchronicle.com
<david@thejewishchronicle.com> From: Squidy <Squidy@jsloman.fsnet.co.uk> Date: 25 October 2001 15:28 Subject: Squidy's Website |
||
Dear Sir, Are you aware that you have an imposter? Someone, presumably some sort of lunatic, is posting badly written messages on the internet using your name, and thereby making you look like a man who is humourless and unprofessional. I recently discovered this posting on my guestbook: Name: david@thejewishchronicle.com
Once I read it I knew it couldn't be from a real journalist such as yourself. I mean, just look at that grammar. And I assume that the real you would be able to spell 'chronicle', seeing as you work at a place so named. The message is also wrong on a number of points. The reference to the "sick jewish post" on my home page presumably means the banner reading "This Website Sponsored By Jews For Hitler: Why Bear A Grudge Over One Little Mistake?". I knew it couldn't be one of the intelligent minds behind the Jewish Chronicle who wrote the guestbook entry as this banner is quite clearly a joke. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be completely devoid of a basic understanding of comedy. It's also not a particularly original joke either, being lifted almost word for word from an article originally printed in MAD Magazine entitled "The Boulevard Of Broken Dreams" (issue 204, published January 1979 in America, and issue 203, March 1979 in Britain). Futhermore, if it is the swastika-amended Magen David that offends, then I should inform you that it was designed by Terry Gilliam for an unused sequence from the 1979 film Monty Python's The Life Of Brian, in which Eric Idle plays the Jewish Nazi Otto, the leader of the suicide squad who tries to rid Israel of non-Jews, foreigners and gypsies. Surely you'd agree that both MAD Magazine and Life Of Brian are "what you'd call" comedy, unlike the person who posted that guestbook entry. Complaint may be raised over the mention of Adolf Hitler. As far as I know, Hitler has always been seen as a figure of fun, ever since he first goose-stepped his way into the newsreels. Films such as To Be Or Not To Be (1942) and Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator (1940) were produced and shown during the time of the Second World War and caricatured Hitler in such a way so as to turn him into a wartime Basil Fawlty. Even British children's comic The Dandy had a laugh at Hitler in it's weekly comic strip 'Addie And Hermy', which ran from 1939 to '41, and followed the weekly adventures of the wacky twosome known as Adolf Hitler and Herman Goering. This proves just how ridiculous the figure of Hitler was, and indeed still is. Almost every great comedy production of the past 40 years has included and mocked the image of Hitler, from Spike Milligan's 'Q' series and Monty Python's Flying Circus to the more recent Father Ted and Brass Eye. The purpose of comedy is not only to make us laugh but to make us think. What is good comedy if not thought-enducing? It is impossible to write around such issues in any format, comedy or otherwise. To ignore that they ever existed and to never mention them in any sort of artistic format would be censorship, and not to allow intelligent right-thinking people such as ourselves to read, watch, listen to or write such pieces, and thereby creating their own opinions, is just as offensive as the censorship that the Nazis tried to induce in the first place. I also doubt that a serious journalist would use the word "sick". That's what people at The Daily Mail use in their headlines when they can't think up any real opinions. Also, refering to the part about how I "take full responsibility" for what you print in your magazine, how can this be? Surely either the contributor or the editor of The Jewish Chronicle take full responsibility for what you print in your magazine. I never contacted The Jewish Chronicle about printing anything of mine in its paper, neither did I force nor trick them into doing it. The decision to include part or all of one of my articles or pictures would be entirely the fault of the man who submitted them in the first place. They would also have been printed illegally without permission as I was never contacted about the publication of any part of my site. I believe that the subject in the article has to be contacted anyway to defend or argue for themselves, otherwise the article will be very one-sided and very bad journalism. On the other hand, I do take full responsibility for what is printed on my webpage, and I will deal with any letters of question, complaint or congratulation in any way I see fit. Incidentally, this post on my guestbook is the first reaction I've got relating to the piece in question. I hope you discover who is responsible for posting this message under your name and making you look like an incompetent amateur with no sense of humour, and that you punish him accordingly. I suggest you do this by making him watch The Producers. Shalom on you, |
Back to
responsibility
for the sick jewish post you have on your home page.