rootbear75 Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 $500 says she said that just to piss off the christians cause they already banned the books... here is just 1 more reason
Russky Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 $500 says she said that just to piss off the christians cause they already banned the books... here is just 1 more reason for sure i dont see any other reason... now that its already banned why not make it worse
ThunderJam Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 $500 says she said that just to piss off the christians cause they already banned the books... here is just 1 more reason Probably only 1 out of 20 kids in my church weren't allowed to read those books. Way to turn something into christian bashing. I think its just her twisted way to get publicity that she is going to need since the books are over and people are gonna forget about her.
rootbear75 Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 tj... i wasnt bashing christians...i was stating a fact, christians have been the least receptive to the series sooo...
ThunderJam Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 there we go. Least receptive is more like it. Banning is an overstatement that's all I was trying to point out.
Gravitron Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 (edited) I wouldn't let my kids read these books, not because I think it'll turn them gay, but because the entire content itself is gay!@#$%^&*sauce that's good for nothing other than creating pansys and catering to pansys.Now, a good book would be something like Robert Mason's Chicken Hawk; and, of course, zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance is a must.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chickenhawk_(book)http://www.robertcmason.com/Books/chpage.html Edited October 23, 2007 by Ori Klein
Samapico Posted October 23, 2007 Report Posted October 23, 2007 there we go. Least receptive is more like it. Banning is an overstatement that's all I was trying to point out.Some christian communities/groups DID ban the book as far as I know
ThunderJam Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 there we go. Least receptive is more like it. Banning is an overstatement that's all I was trying to point out.Some christian communities/groups DID ban the book as far as I knowI don't exactly see how this is possible. If it was banned, who would stop members of this group from reading it? How would they know? It's not like their church leaders are spying on their houses. Plus wat do you mean by communities/groups? I guess you could be reffering to a specific church.. in which case members go their by choice so it's not like a chuch can FORCE them not to read something.
Maurauth Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 $500 says she said that just to piss off the christians cause they already banned the books... here is just 1 more reason Probably only 1 out of 20 kids in my church weren't allowed to read those books. Way to turn something into christian bashing. I think its just her twisted way to get publicity that she is going to need since the books are over and people are gonna forget about her. lol, she doesn't need to "get publicity" she wont have to work a single day of the rest of her lives, and will still live a better life than most people, she's !@#$%^&*ing minted.
ThunderJam Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 Well yea but you know how celebrities are. You get a taste of publicity, and you never wanna let it die. Now that her books are over, at some point or other she is gonna fade. Unless her future books are as popular as harry potter, which i doubt :/
Tiq Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 Lol, why does this matter? Personally, I don't see why the author of the article saw fit to write an entire article complaining about Dumbledore never revealing his sexuality in the books. Straight folk never have to explicitly state their sexuality, and the equality between heteros and homos will only be achieved when such explicit declarations are no longer required, and no longer shocking. Furthermore, many (even homosexual rights sympathizers) complain about things like the gay pride parades shoving their beliefs down our throats (hehe), yet suddenly, when it is revealed that someone (a fictional character no less) who is gay, did not see fit to explicitly state it, we have an outraged and pompous reporter deciding to make a story out of it on what was clearly a slow news day. Personally, I don't see how it would have fit in the dialogue. "Harry, you must defeat Voldemort. Did I mention I'm gay? It's not terribly important to your quest, but I felt like it needed to be said. Now this is what you must do..." This is the biggest non-story of the season.
Gravitron Posted October 24, 2007 Report Posted October 24, 2007 I'm straight.Unless really very drunk.And drugged.And you have implants.And you're dressed in a very sexy dress.And I've been in prison for the past several years.And I've snorted some crystal meth.And I got drunk.And you got drunk too.And I was listening to metal too much to notice your tone of voice.And you got on the floor and bent it up.And I was really very stoned.And I haven't had sex in jail for the past several years (except that time I pushed bubba over...and I was drugged...and drunk...very drunk...and he wore a dress...and I was lonely and sexless for couple years...)And someone gave me a working internet laptop and I visited 4chan.And I haven't had sex in a very long time, and I was lonely, and drugged and very very drunk...
Recommended Posts