Tim Blair

Wow! Baptists down under!

Bet they don't have any school dances, either.

Amazing...I wonder if they have C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" adorning their shelves...probably not, with all of those witches and magic and spells and all. Wouldn't want to warp the minds of the impressionable kiddies, now, would we?

I wonder if they've gotten confused about the word "fantasy"?

I can think of some... lots... of "fantasys" that are definitely not suitable for schoolchildren.

Well maybe a 17 year old schoolgirl...

Until this year, my sons attended a small private church school. Last year, my older boy brought home a "suggested reading list," of books thought suitable for doing assigned book reports on. I was pleased to see both the "Lord of the Rings" books and C.S. Lewis's "Narnia" books on it.

Until later in the week, when both Tolkien and Lewis were crossed off the list.

Another point to consider: Don't forget that there is a financial aspect to this.

When the second "Harry Potter" book came out, both my sons brought home flyers they had been given at school, proclaiming that the "Potter" books were satanic, un-biblical, and unsuitable for Christian children.

Who wrote and distributed the flyer to Christian schools? Beka, the big "Christian textbook" publisher.

Devil's Advocate here; from an atheist's point of view religion is pure fantasy too. Not that I promote attracting thunderbolts mind you...

Given the explicit violence and sexual nature of the Bible I'm suprised children aren't banned from reading it while teens would love it. Doesn't work that way though.

You think I sound flipant and silly - reread the article and see my inspiration.

God(s) I just love happy-clappys, seeing evil in all the wrong places. It just makes me laugh to see them bleat about Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings. And not one of these nitwits realises why children that come out of the really loony religious schools are so maladjusted later in life...sigh.

I think the policy about fantasy is strange. And the whole Fahrenheit 451-style book banning is counter-productive. Pop quiz - telling a kid that a book is "bad" will a) lead him/her to cower in fear whenever said book is mentioned let alone seen or b) lead him/her to purchase and read the book at the first opportunity.

If these people are serious about the idea that there is something dangerous or wrong about this book, then the answer is for the kids to read the book under the supervision of teachers who are able to deal with those questions when they arise. I disagree with the sentiment, but I think that they could handle this in a way which would better accomplish their goals.

Banning all Nazi books, signs and references has not made Germany a universally tolerant society - it has just created a shadow-side which nobody can ever address properly.

No doubt someone will pull me up if I have got this wrong, but don't the Maranatha educators also believe that you shouldn't teach a child to read until their baby teeth have all fallen out.

I apologise if this is wrong. My wife is an early childhood educator and told me about a group who actually beleive this and I think the name was Maranatha.

Here's an alternative Christian approach to Harry Potter. Don't paint (tar?) everyone with the same brush.

http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/02/apr/28/01.html

The risk of stake-bound incineration would be a small price to pay for tax exempt staus.
Anyone got a few spare facial warts and a broom?

link didn't work- try here:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/29/1056825277834.html

Tim, what is your policy on fantasy, please?

This is a very confusing time for conscientious parents. Rome's official exorcist in Dec '02 warned parents against the Harry Potter book series. Check the following link: http://www.familylifecenter.net/html/harrypotter-exorcist.html

Who are Catholic parents to believe: the man in Rome or Sydney's Archbishop?

Potter is very different to C.S. Lewis (an Anglican when he wrote the Narnia series) and J.R.R. Tolkien (a life long daily Mass attendee).

Just because something is popular/successful doesn't make it OK.

For the Harry naysayers, a few questions:

1) Is Harry Potter one of the Good Guys? (Absolutely)

2) Is Harry resolute in fighting the Bad Guys? (Absolutely)

3) Does Harry use his formidable skills for good? (Absolutely)

4) Is Harry likeable; i.e., do you cheer for him and want him to do well? (Absolutely)

5) Is he someone you would want your kids to look at and say, "I want to be like him"? (Absolutely, particularly in The Order of the Phoenix, where we see him grappling, rather successfully, with typical teenage angst)

So we have a good, admirable character we like, who fights for good against the bad guys.

Yeah, I see a lot to be troubled about there. Sarcasm//off.

Note to TN: just because something is popular/successful doesn't make it bad either.

Yes.... A policy on Fantasy....

Or in other words, Educational Decree Number 37.

"Potter is very different to C.S. Lewis (an Anglican when he wrote the Narnia series) and J.R.R. Tolkien (a life long daily Mass attendee)."

Well, DUH. Potter is a fictional character. C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkein were not. I mean, you do know that Harry is not real, right?

Got some bad news for you. The Easter Bunny, James Bond, and Superman are not real, either.

LOL. Too funny.

Witches were hanged, not burned. What kind of a school has a policy on fantasy?

I would never allow my children to pollute their minds with that J. K. Rowling Harry Potter witchcraft fantasy nonsense. I keep them on a strict diet of Aleister Crowley.

TN, they should follow either Pell or Amorth. They're both good men - they just see Potter differently. There's no Catholic doctrine concerning Harry Potter. I find Pell's attitude more persuasive because it seems (to me) more sensible.

And g-man, gee man*, I'm sure at some stage witches were burned.

*sorry

"I'm sure at some stage witches were burned."

Witches were burned in Europe, especially during the Medieval Inquisition, although estimates of the total number vary widely. Joan or Arc was burned as a witch after trial by an Ecclesiastical Court.

In the U.S. witches weren't burned, but a number were hanged and one crushed to death during the Salem Witch Trials.

I seem to recall some news reports of people being killed and burned by mobs in Nigeria for alleged witchcraft a couple of years ago.

TO: Tim
RE: School Libraries, Reading Material & Fantasy

"A policy on fantasy?" -- Tim Blair

I'm sure that they have a policy on fantasy. Not surprised in the least. I'm sure lots of libraries, especially those operated for educational purposes have such policies to govern what they make available to their students and what they forbid.

Or are you suggesting they bring in hardbound volumns of Hustler?

Hmmmmmm...

Would those go in the 'fantasy' section in a school's library?

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: The Man
RE: Warp Speed

"...with all of those witches and magic and spells and all. Wouldn't want to warp the minds of the impressionable kiddies, now, would we?" -- the man

Ever read that series [C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe et al] yourself? In it the Witch is 'bad'. It parallels the idea in the Old Testament that witchcraft is bad.

It's their school and their library. Are you saying that they have to put into it something they disapprove of?

If so, I'd suggest you go polish your jack-boots.

Or, if you want to take a more pro-active and peaceable solution, you can promote the books in your local school's library.

And yes, young minds are 'impressionable' or did you forget that business? If you have, then try suggesting to your local school's librarian that they should take up the idea I offered Tim (above). Listen closely to the arguments you get back against the idea.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

"Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble..."
-- The Tragedy of MacBeth

I think that Chuck Pelto has the right idea, it's their library and they can put in it and ban from it whatever they want to. Just so long as they don't try to ban it out of public libraries.

I don't think that anyone's suggesting that they can't ban Harry Potter from their own library, just that doing so is a bit peculiar, and that children denied access to relatively harmless aspects of popular culture will not share the same core cultural values and beliefs. But perhaps that's the point.

TO: Bruce Rheinstein
RE: Beauty Is In the Eye....

...of the beholder, neh?

So is evil.

Who is to say whose eye is better at discerning between the two, with respect to one's own children?

Do you have children?

If so, did/will you give them Hustler magazine to read at the age of 8? Or, to ween them off of picture books, the writings of the Marquis de Sade?

If not, why not?

I'm sure that someone, somewhere thinks those are harmless books. They are certainly aspects of popular culture, these days. Maybe even you.

But others might disagree.

Food for thought.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Chuck,

The parent isn't always the best judge of what is good for the child, but denying children the opportunity to read Harry Potter hardly constitutes abuse or neglect. I may regard your religious belief that Harry Potter is "evil" to be peculiar, but it is also your own business so long as you don't try to impose it on others.

I have three children, ages nine, six and three, and the two eldest have seen both movies. They enjoyed them, but neither seems particularly interested in the witchcraft stuff, and neither has expressed an interest in reading the books. They're both more geared toward non-fiction.

There is a substantial difference between a skin mag and a work of sexual perversion -- and Harry Potter. J.K. Rowling isn't exactly Aleister Crowley, either. She tells a good tale, but I don't see any cult-like behavior resulting from the books or movies.

Bruce

Has Bob Larsen (the TBN television personality who claimed the "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" were satanic because they communicated to each other telepathically, who claimed "2010" was satanic because the name of the "second sun" was Lucifer, and who recently toured the US to promote his "10 Tips For a Successful Exorcism") weighed in on this pressing issue?

To: Chuck

It is no secret that children are impressionable, nor is it per se a travesty that Christian schoolchildren will not see Harry Potter adorning their school's bookshelves. All of us pretty much agree that the school has the *absolute* right to control into what its charges have access while they are in their care.

What I *am* saying is that a policy that restricts certain books that mention witchcraft and not others is somewhat inconsistent - especially when magic and such are merely story-telling devises, much like warp drive and force fields in science fiction. Merely calling something "witchcraft" and an incantation a "spell" does not make them *truly* so.

Anyway, it's not likely that the impressionable children will be able to tell the difference between magic being in concert with biblical allegory device (as per Lewis, and thus "good") or as just a fun way to tell another feel-good story (as per Rowling, and thus "not good," according to you) unless they are *taught* this difference - and this is where schools can have a real impact on the education of children, religious or not. If the school is not willing to do this, then *both* Lewis and Rowling should be off the shelves in order to be consistent with the stated policy - simply because the most impressionable children will not be able to discern between the two.

The Man

Oh, and BTW, I have read a good slug of Lewis, including all of the Narnia books and Surprised by Joy, the Great Divorce, amongst others.

Why is the time on this webblog set to 1 hour faster than Eastern Standard Australian Time?

Just a quick note to RJGator, yes I am aware that Master Potter is fictional and that Lewis and Tolkien are real life human beings. But you surprise me that the Easter Bunny, James Bond and Superman are not real. The falsehoods have been lifted from my eyes and I now see the truth.

I'm not sold on Archbishop Pell being more persuasive than the Vatican's official exorcist. For whatever reason, Pell doesn't seem to answer the points made by the Vatican and neither has anyone on this page.

The fact that witches were burned at the stake many centuries ago is of no consequence to the debate about the merits of J.K. Rowlings writings.

To date no one seems to want to offend commercial sensibilities because Rowlings has almost single-handedly brought children back to books. This achievement is worthy and admirable. But this in itself doesn't mean that the works shouldn't be critically reviewed and rejected if need be.

The practice of witchcraft is seen as an evil by most faiths afterall.

Finally parents are the best to judge what is best for their children. It is their responsibility.

Why is this school characterised as "conservative", it's just doing the same thing as the PC types who ban golliwogs and books that portray women in the wrong light etc. And they are always referred to as "progressive".

Enid Blyton got the arse because of sexist stereotypes, and for god's sake don't try and bring "Little Black Sambo" into a public school- shrill harridans, harpies and horrors will want to burn YOU at the stake.

I hope the following gives some insight into why Christian schools don't want these books on their shelves. I assume everyone agrees they have the right to do so. But let's take a look at their arguments.

There is quite some difference between the books of Lewis and Rowling. Some posters couldn't discern that, but in the books of Lewis children do not engage in witchcraft, nor are they taught it. Witchcraft is only used by the evil side.

Not so in the books of Rowling. Harry Potter is taught it and uses it. Perhaps to fight evil, but communism also wanted to fight evil. The goal doesn't hallow the means. The Bible explicitly forbids using witchcraft. Interestingly, it does not say it doesn't work (nor that it does).

And just take a look at Harry Potter's reading list. I don't have the book here to quote it exactly, but it is something like dancing on graves, communication with the dead, not exactly subjects that Christians feel comfortable with.

And in case of doubt, a Christian school would do better to leave it to the discretion of parents if children should read a certain book or not.

And when was the last time a public school asked parents if they think reading Karl Marx (fill in your favorige) was a good idea? Even if a significant percentage of parents are opposed, I can't remember having a say in what my kids get to read.

Oh my god. J.K. Rowlings = Karl Marx. Yo, Berend, I am so not convinced by your bizarre diatribe. It's about as convincing as Chuckle Pelto's "Harry Potter = Hustler magazine" bullshit.

I am going to only say this once: the "magic" in the Harry Potter books is NOT REAL, nor does it correspond either to the rituals and practices of pre-Christian pagan peoples, to the supposed remnants of those rituals and practices engaged in by people accused of being witches and sorcerers in Europe and America's past, nor to the rituals and practices of the various contemporary pagan faiths (for instance, Wicca, Magick, the "Old Religion," and so forth. As a matter of fact, the "magic" and "witchcraft" in the Harry Potter books come straight out of popular culture's idea of such things -- aka Disney, Warner Brothers, Hollywood, and thousands of children's stories and fairy tales. And furthermore, as has already been pointed out but I'll repeat it here, the "magic" is a literary device -- actually, a metaphor, for something that Rowlings is trying to say about being a kid and growing up and dealing with life, albeit in a light-hearted manner.

And last of all, the Harry Potter books are FICTION. Yes: FICTION FICTION FICTION FICTION. They are not: manuals for casting magical spells on people, calls to join an evil, godless -- excuse me, Godless -- cult, or any of that shizzat. Jesus H. Christ, will you people (aka fundies who are so all-fired up about the Evil Influence of Harry Potter) get a grip?

PS: and you, Mr. Pelto -- I don't want another word out of you. I don't give a shit about your kids. You brought them into the world, you take care of them. Don't put bars and walls around my world just because you don't want to deal with the discomfort of finding out your kids have individual minds and personalities. And -- word of advice -- if you don't want your kids to read the books, you had better not ban them, because I can guarantee you they will be on the books like white on rice. And for God's sake, quit signing your goddamn posts. Your name appears in the "posted by" line. And quit with the cutesy memo style too. It's getting on my nerves.

Jesus.

Are you Andrea Harris or Jesus?

looks like andrea harris likes to curl up with a nice harry potter book and 'live in fantasy.'
it's so pathetic that grown up people are as into this CHILDREN'S book as the actual CHILDREN are. just one more example of how insular and regressive we, as a society are getting.
grow up, andrea.

Yeah, retard who can't punctuate correctly or use capitol letters or even reason. (Adults reading and discussing a children's book means we are getting more insular and repressive as a society? "You are an idiot" is my carefully reasoned and thought-out reply to that.) I'm really going to listen to you and mend my ways. Ooh -- and "grow up" is so the ultimate put down. You know, I think you need to pull on your ear a little harder: your head is still jammed pretty firmly up your rectum.

Oh, and TN: no, I'm not Jesus. In case you were wondering. "Jesus" was meant as a final comment on the futility of it all. You know, the way people shake their heads and mutter "Oh, Jesus," when some butthead stops an entire conversation dead to have a joke explained and re-explained because they don't understand why it is so funny why a priest, a rabbi, and a drag queen go into a bar and encounter a three-eyed alien prostitute "because there isn't any such thing as a three-eyed alien."

hey andrea....
you are obviously FULL OF RAGE!!!!
so here we go: grow up and read something that might be actually worth while reading.
ie i didn't say 'repressive,' i said 'regressive' as in we are 'regressing' to more immature, childish states. but your ranting and swearing certainly made me change my mind about that.
(roll eyes)

["jon" MODE] you are obviously FULL OF POO!!! [/"jon" MODE]

As for our society becoming more "regressive" -- I guess it is, if the childishness of your comments is any indication. Incidentally, there was no such thing in Western culture as "children's literature" (that is, literature designed especially to be read by children and to be either mocked or ignored by adults) before the Victorian age. Before that time, children were taught to read using the very same works that their parents read. It wasn't until the advent of a substantial upper middle class that could both afford to hire nannies and governesses to care for the children (separating children from adults more, which also lengthened childhood as the increased income of the families meant the children did not have to enter the workforce so soon) and to be able to afford luxuries such as toys and other diversions for children that the notion of manufacturing stories especially for children to read was born.

I hope that I didn't use too many words or capitals, "jon." Also, arguing that adults should not read something because it was not specifically geared towards their age-group is something only a teenager (or someone who has never aged beyond teenager) would think. Argue against the books -- any book -- on its own merits or lack thereof, not on the age group it is marketed at. Or are you just a slave of the Corporate Machine?

what rubbish are you talking about? 'slave of the corporate machine?' good god, make sense.
BTW - have you noticed yet how i don't care about using capitals etc? i bet that really riles you up doesn't it.
who's the childish one?
'full of poo?' 'retard,''idiot,' 'head jammed up rectim.' and then there's the patronising; "i hope that I didn't use too many words or capitals, "jon." like i don't know how to punctuate. Well, Andrea, I do. But does it really matter?
I mean, you've done all that stuff yet you've made absolutely no good points at all.

I'm not sure that "grow up" is the ultimate put down.

"Time of the month is it?", is probably a greater put down.

You're certainly fired-up Ms Harris which is your right of course. Name calling or labelling is a tad uncalled for and tends to show a lack of any serious arguments.

Perhaps our dear Mr Blair needs to establish some ground rules to encourage decency?

Films and other visual media are graded according to their suitability. We could argue about how well this process is down at a practical level but that is not my point.

Very little other entertainment is graded in a similar fashion. For example, The Lord of The Rings movies have all been rated MA but any child can pick up and read the book(s).

I wonder why most print and aural entertainment remains free of censorship of any kind. Governments rarely solve the social problems that arise. They've caused a good few of them in their time ...

Andrea,

I noticed you blaspheme differently to most people. You give Christ a middle initial, H. Where did that come from? What does it stand for?

Gabor,

"Jesus H. Christ" is a southernism. I've been told that the H is for holy and I've been told that it is a corruption of "Jesus Christ Himself". Personally I'm inclined to the latter explanation.

Another southernism in a similar vein is "since Christ was a corporal" used to refer to something that has been around since time immemorial. It is a corruption of "since Christ was corporeal".

I always thought it stood for "Homer."

PS: jon and TN -- 8|

TO: Bruce Rheinstein
RE: Who Decides?

"The parent isn't always the best judge of what is good for the child, but denying children the opportunity to read Harry Potter hardly constitutes abuse or neglect." -- Bruce

Go polish your jack-boots.

"I have three children, ages nine, six and three, and the two eldest have seen both movies." -- Bruce

So please explain why you show them movies about witchcraft and whether or not you have shown them the Story of O, Behind the Green Door. Or Quills.

Is there a difference?

What is it?

"There is a substantial difference between a skin mag and a work of sexual perversion..." -- Bruce

What makes YOU the 'authority' on the difference? I'm sure there are people in San Francisco who would disagree with you.

So...should they dictate to you what you show your children?

Or criticize you for you selection in their 'education'?

By what right? What 'power'? What 'authority'?

If you want, I can provide a URL for NAMBLA....

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: the man
RE: In Locutus Parentus

"All of us pretty much agree that the school has the *absolute* right to control into what its charges have access while they are in their care." -- the 'man'

You must have a mouse in your pocket, compadre; when you say 'All of us'.

I certainly don't agree with that premise.

And most intelligent folk around US tend to agree with me. You abrogate your responsibilities to the state? That's your preogative. Not any rational person's.

RE:

"What I *am* saying is that a policy that restricts certain books that mention witchcraft and not others is somewhat inconsistent - especially when magic and such are merely story-telling devises, much like warp drive and force fields in science fiction. Merely calling something "witchcraft" and an incantation a "spell" does not make them *truly* so." -- the man

First off. You seem to be forgetting that it's actually THEIR library. They can put in it what they want, neh? Or are you saying that anyone can call on any group to put into their teachings things that are abhorant to them? That's tyranny, compadre.

RE: Teaching

"Anyway, it's not likely that the impressionable children will be able to tell the difference between magic being in concert with biblical allegory device (as per Lewis, and thus "good") or as just a fun way to tell another feel-good story (as per Rowling, and thus "not good," according to you) unless they are *taught* this difference " -- the man

What on earth do you think goes on in a school anyway?

Furthermore, when you start reading your children 'bedtime' stories by the Marquis de Sade, please get in touch with me. I'd like to start tracking their development.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: Andrea Harris
RE: It's All a Myth

"...the "magic" in the Harry Potter books is NOT REAL, nor does it correspond either to the rituals and practices of pre-Christian pagan peoples...

And last of all, the Harry Potter books are FICTION. Yes: FICTION FICTION FICTION FICTION. They are not: manuals." -- Andrea Harris

You sound like someone who speaks from 'authority'. Or perhaps 'experience'.

Please give us your frame of reference.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Back in the 19th Century people said men going to the moon was 'fiction'.]

TO: Andrea Harris
RE: P.S.

"PS: and you, Mr. Pelto -- I don't want another word out of you." -- Andrea Harris

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid you're going to have to be more 'pro-active' in order to accomplish your wish. The term 'kill' comes to mind.

Or will you try to 'cast a spell'?

[Note: Be advised....Been there. Done that. The spell caster lost the bout. Sounded rather painful too.]

TO: Andrea Harris
RE: P.P.S.

"And quit with the cutesy memo style too. It's getting on my nerves." -- Andrea Harris

It's not intended to be 'cutsey'. It's intended to be effective.

[Note: Something to do with 27 years of service in the infantry. And some other bimbo already hates my guts for mentioning that too, so don't bother yourself with reminding me of who or what I am. I've heard it often enough that you could hardly be creative with a put-down. But feel free to try, if you must. You might get 'lucky'.]

TO: Andrea Harris
RE: P.P.P.S.

"Don't put bars and walls around my world..." -- Andrea Harris

Please point out where I am forbidding you from reading any material.

I suspect, lady, that you 'project'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. Since when is "Chuck(le)" the same as "Posted by: Chuck Pelto"?

You scold some people for poor punctuation?

You got problems of your own to deal with.

[Why do you tell your brother that he has a mote in his eye, when you have a beam in yours? -- Jesus "H." Christ]

Some people never understand irony.....

Well Mr Pelto has certainly been active.

I hope Ms Harris' (or perhaps "JHC" to her friends?) keyboard doesn't get too much physical abuse whilst the replies are being prepared.

I've never been particularly good at cryptic crosswords, JHC, so what does "-- 8|" mean???

When replying please remember that this is a family program.

Mr. Pelto. Your tactics are not "effective." An email is on its way to you. You will cease posting here, as of now.

Jon: Andrea is quite correct. 'Children's literature' does not mean 'literature unfit for adults'. If you are so uncertain of your own maturity that you are afraid to be caught reading children's books, don't worry; your maturity isn't all you think it is. Nor is calling other people childish for reading Harry Potter books an effective rhetorical tactic. (I myself would rather read books written for intelligent children, like the Harry Potter series, than books written for painfully stupid adults, like, oh, The Celestine Prophecy or anything by Michael Moore.)

Chuck(le): The 'magic' depicted in the Harry Potter books does not work, never has worked, & is contrary to all natural laws yet discovered or hypothesized. If someone wants to try practising Potter-style 'witchcraft', they're welcome to try; those of us with a grip on reality will get a good belly laugh out of it. Rocket propulsion to the Moon, on the other hand, does work. This difference rather vitiates your analogy.

All: The really silly thing about this whole tempest is the implication that J.K. Rowling is somehow interested in promoting the practice of witchcraft (she isn't), or that she is opposed to Christianity. She is, according to several sources I've read, a member in good standing of the Church of Scotland, & at least an intermittent churchgoer (which, alas, is more than a lot of Scots Presbyterians can say). If the anti-Potterites want to claim that the C. of S. is not sufficiently Christian, & that for Rowling to belong to such a church only strengthens their claim that she is in league with the Antichrist . . . well, they can go right ahead. It's always helpful when the lunatic fringe start saying things that are obviously lunatic, thus encouraging sane persons to distance themselves from their position.

"So please explain why you show them movies about witchcraft and whether or not you have shown them the Story of O, Behind the Green Door. Or Quills."

I think we're looking at a perfect example of the mindset at work here. Obviously, mockery is appropriate but no one should expect any minds to be changed.

I wonder what Richard Harris would make of the idea that his last piece of work was morally equivalent to porn marketed at children. I imagine his response would be enlightening and definitely not fit for children to hear.

TO: Andrea Harris
RE: Efficacy

"Mr. Pelto. Your tactics are not "effective."" -- Andrea Harris

Well, I guess that all depends on how one qualifies/quantifies 'effective'.

On one hand, you don't reply, except, allegedly, in private. Not in public. There may be something in that.

On the other hand...

...you didn't seem to address, in public, any of the points/hints I made. Either one of us is a member of densa or one of us is unwilling to face the challenges being offered by the other.

So what is 'effective'?

RE: E-Mail

Found your e-mail, in the junk-bin, with all the other trash. I apologize. I did not readily recognize your name there. But then again, please forgive me, I got 300+ items in that read. [Note: So much mail. So little time. I tend to key on names.]

More on that later.

Question: Can I please make public our discussion? I think many would benefit.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
P.S. My posting style sometimes calls for multiple replies to a single post. I wish I could be more succinct, but......I'm an ENTJ...life is like that.

TO: Ray Random
RE: It's "Magic"

"Chuck(le): The 'magic' depicted in the Harry Potter books does not work, never has worked, & is contrary to all natural laws yet discovered or hypothesized. If someone wants to try practising Potter-style 'witchcraft', they're welcome to try; those of us with a grip on reality will get a good belly laugh out of it." -- Ray Random

This sounds like a 'voice of experience'.

Personally?

I know people who practice 'magic'. They are practicing 'wicca'. Indeed, one of them was recently the head of a chapter of Mensa, until she moved out of the area.

RE: Rocket Science vs. "Reality"

"Rocket propulsion to the Moon, on the other hand, does work. This difference rather vitiates your analogy." -- Ray Random

We've both experienced the sight of people on the moon.

However, I suspect you've never experienced wicca, first hand.

On the other hand, I suspect you believe what you have experienced, personally. Right? Or do you disbelieve what your eyes have seen and ears have heard?

Ray, we live in an wonderful and fascinating world. If someone can see more than you can, who is at fault? The one who sees more of it or the one who fails to see?

You may think it a 'tempest in a teapot', but for those who have been engaged, it's a bit more than that.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Power is poison.]

TO: Sean E
RE: Mindset Syndrome

"I think we're looking at a perfect example of the mindset at work here. Obviously, mockery is appropriate but no one should expect any minds to be changed." -- Sean E

I'm not required to 'change' anyone's mind.

Rather, I'm required to speak the truth. That is all. And it is certainly sufficient.

I lay it down. They decide for themselves whether or not to pick it up.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[It has something to do with 'free will'.]

TO: Sean E
RE: Harris' Response

"I wonder what Richard Harris would make of the idea that his last piece of work was morally equivalent to porn marketed at children. I imagine his response would be enlightening and definitely not fit for children to hear." -- Sean E

Now THAT is an interesting idea.

I'm sure he's heard the idea.

I'm curious to see what he has learned as a result.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

TO: All
RE: Murder Threats

Now I'm being threatened with 'death', at timblair.spleenville.com by, guess who....

Oh well, when they can't make effective argument, they usually turn to 'killing' their opponents....

...just like those people who shoot AK-47s in the air and fly planes into large commercial and military structures.

They all use the same technique. And for the same reasons.

If you don't hear from me after this post, you'll understand why.

Vaya con Dios, compadres,

Chuck(le)
[Violence is the early recourse of the incompetent.]