beausox Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Can't distinguish fiction and non-fiction, can't distinguish "converse" and "obverse", can't distinguish "Catholic" and "non-Catholic"...I'm sensing a pattern... 303937[/snapback] Can too! Obverse ( obvertere,L) to turn toward; Converse,(convertere,L) to turn around. The former means the most conspicuous of two possible cases or the counterpoint of a proposition obtained by exchanging the affirmative for the negative quality of the whole proposition and then negating the predicate. I'm sure you now understand because it is not a lot unlike how you act in concert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 it should be sense a pattern 304202[/snapback] I think I'm falling in love with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Can too! Obverse ( obvertere,L) to turn toward; Converse,(convertere,L) to turn around. The former means the most conspicuous of two possible cases or the counterpoint of a proposition obtained by exchanging the affirmative for the negative quality of the whole proposition and then negating the predicate. I'm sure you now understand because it is not a lot unlike how you act in concert. 304324[/snapback] Looks like someone can cut and paste from dictionary.com " The more conspicuous of two possible alternatives, cases...The counterpart of a proposition obtained by exchanging the affirmative for the negative quality of the whole proposition and then negating the predicate." Dictionary.com Thingy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I just read all 7 pages. Why, I dont know, but I did. How old are you Beausox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I think I'm falling in love with you. 304328[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 You win. Your ignorance is invincible. 304292[/snapback] Oooh...I'm sense that someone a little obvertive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 Congratulations, Cowboy. You managed to stay on the whole eight seconds. Remarkable. 304309[/snapback] Is that all this was? Damn it feels like it was so much longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Can you imagine mocking lesbianism or homosexuality in the popular press? Robin Hood, Men in Tights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Robin Hood, Men in Tights 320463[/snapback] Will & Grace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 However, those that are so ardently defending the book as fiction seem to be overlooking beausox’s underlying point. While this book is fiction, it is very clear that Brown wrote it with the intent to further advance the theories he believes to be true regarding Catholicism and Christ’s life. Brown has stated that he believes the theories in his book are true; he did extensive (shoddy) research as shown in the bibliography. Brown wrote the book with these theories as a prominent theme, using a fictional story to dress it up and make it more appealing to the masses. If Brown just wrote a book detailing his research and expounding on the many theories, without the fictional writing, obviously it would not sell well. 303620[/snapback] The author of this novel has a bit of an agenda too, wouldn't you say? left behind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Not sure if this was stated? Didn't Wells and the station tell everyone that it was NOT REAL before they started to air the show? Unfortunately, most people tuned in AFTER the disclaimer... And things snowballed. ???? 303660[/snapback] WKBW in Buffalo did this in the late 1960's and even sprinkled the script with frequent disclaimers and still people panicked and a National Guard unit went on alert! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 This argument is ridiculous. Obviously, this book is fiction as has been clearly stated. That is fact and can’t be denied. It is advertised as fiction; it is found in the fiction section of the bookstore; the story and characters are not real. However, those that are so ardently defending the book as fiction seem to be overlooking beausox’s underlying point. While this book is fiction, it is very clear that Brown wrote it with the intent to further advance the theories he believes to be true regarding Catholicism and Christ’s life. Brown has stated that he believes the theories in his book are true; he did extensive (shoddy) research as shown in the bibliography. Brown wrote the book with these theories as a prominent theme, using a fictional story to dress it up and make it more appealing to the masses. If Brown just wrote a book detailing his research and expounding on the many theories, without the fictional writing, obviously it would not sell well. I don’t see why that is so difficult to understand. Brown obviously has an agenda and uses a fictional story to push it through to the readers and he does it very well. But to explain away the seriousness of Brown’s theories and charges, just because the book is “fiction” is missing the point. It is precisely because the book is fiction that Catholics and others are taking it seriously – because it appeals to the average joe and is selling like crazy,yet it is advancing theories as fact that mock and question the foundation of the Catholic faith. Fictional works can be very powerful social commentaries, they can (along with the media) lend credibility to growing causes, they can persuade, anger and enlighten. Just because you find a book in the “fiction” section of your local bookstore doesn’t mean it has no truth to it and can’t influence the reader. Quoted again for emphasis, because certain "board leaders" trying to be smartasses are looking pretty foolish, if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 I'll jump on this fun merry-go-round. Yes it does. And it requires the reader to recognize that the book is fiction. 303241[/snapback] But I bet a lot of people who are swayed easily will read it and take it as fact, again DaVinci does provide a lot of facts....but people will take the WHOLE book as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 But I bet a lot of people who are swayed easily will read it and take it as fact, again DaVinci does provide a lot of facts....but people will take the WHOLE book as fact. 320669[/snapback] ...but...but...but...the author believes some of the theories, so therefore the ENTIRE book is non-fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Quoted again for emphasis, because certain "board leaders" trying to be smartasses are looking pretty foolish, if you ask me. 320546[/snapback] This thread's still alive? Yippee. My favorite quote from within the quote you so love is this. If Brown just wrote a book detailing his research and expounding on the many theories, without the fictional writing, obviously it would not sell well. Uhhh yeah. No spit. That's why he had to fill the gaping holes between the facts with the crap he made up. Again. Fik-shun. Does he have an agenda? Probably. Do I care? Not really- doesn't everyone? Graham Greene, one of the greatest novelists of the 20th century- and a Catholic- had many agendas. I read his books because they are good, and I understand the agenda. And, like most people, I recognize that the books are fiction. You know what else sells well? The Cat in the Hat. That book mocks us all- tries to use facts to convince us that cats can talk. But it *is* based on reality. Cats are real. Hats are real. Cats IN hats are possible. Dr. Suess conspiracists unite. Are there really Whos in Whoville? Anyone seen a Sneetch? Where is my moss covered three handled family credenza anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 This thread's still alive? Yippee. My favorite quote from within the quote you so love is this. Uhhh yeah. No spit. That's why he had to fill the gaping holes between the facts with the crap he made up. Again. Fik-shun. Does he have an agenda? Probably. Do I care? Not really- doesn't everyone? Graham Greene, one of the greatest novelists of the 20th century- and a Catholic- had many agendas. I read his books because they are good, and I understand the agenda. And, like most people, I recognize that the books are fiction. You know what else sells well? The Cat in the Hat. That book mocks us all- tries to use facts to convince us that cats can talk. But it *is* based on reality. Cats are real. Hats are real. Cats IN hats are possible. Dr. Suess conspiracists unite. Are there really Whos in Whoville? Anyone seen a Sneetch? Where is my moss covered three handled family credenza anyway? 320822[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Wow. And you people believe what you say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Wow. And you people believe what you say. 321006[/snapback] Mostly because we're easily able to seperate the wheat from the chaff. You'll notice that the 4 most ardent folks on our side of the argument (KRC, JA, CTM, and myself) don't belong to a political party and aren't easily influenced nor make decisions based solely on emotion. Welcome to adulthood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Mostly because we're easily able to seperate the wheat from the chaff. You'll notice that the 4 most ardent folks on our side of the argument (KRC, JA, CTM, and myself) don't belong to a political party and aren't easily influenced nor make decisions based solely on emotion. Welcome to adulthood. 321008[/snapback] Because this is relevant to the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Wow. And you people believe what you say. 321006[/snapback] Do you have something to contribute to this thread? Or are you just going to quote other people? Don't get me wrong. I like this thread a lot. It's one of the more amusing things ever discussed on TSW or PPP, but I'm just wondering if you're here to add something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts