Comments on: Another reason not to have a statue of a golden calf

By: sumac

sumac — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:38:04 +0000

In reply to tanita.

No, I don’t think the artist took the statue. I doubt that’s the kind of PR he wants — and what better could he get than the Pope’s response?

I think I would describe the tone of the post as “silly.” The story has a lot of silly elements, and that’s what struck me. Though I will go on record as saying that I think it’s wrong to steal people’s statues for whatever reason. (There must be exceptions to this rule, but they’re not occurring to me at the moment.)

By: marjorie

marjorie — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:24:16 +0000

you forgot that he also studied with Dreck!

By: tanita

tanita — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:58:18 +0000

…so, SorryWatch feels the artist took the statue? and wrote the note? For PR purposes?

I don’t exactly feel nail-pierced fiberglass statues are in the best taste, but I’m a little confused at the tone of the post.

By: sumac

sumac — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:27:38 +0000

In reply to David Turoff. Maybe I'm getting soft.

By: David Turoff

David Turoff — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 16:48:20 +0000

I’m not so sure I agree that the apology itself was that good, though it certainly was succinct; however the Sorry Watch post describing it was freaking hilarious; thanks!