Rug Burn Junky on 24/5/2006 at 13:04
Quote Posted by fett
Bah - not true. I'm actually disturbed more about his distortion of history than anything else.
Than you missed my point: IT'S a FUCKING NOVEL.
It's not a history book. He could say EVERYTHING IN THIS BOOK IS 100% TRUE 50 times, and it doesn't change the fact that it's still a
work of fiction and published as such. Only an idiot will take it at face value. Sure, it's all "true," "accurate" and/or "facts,"
within the context of the novel. My copy of Dune had a 100 page glossary at the end of it, that doesn't mean I think it's the Oxford Fucking English Dictionary.
And unfortunately, the type of small minded, literalist idiot who would believe, and or feel betrayed, by that, are the same type of small minded literalist idiots who actually believe that jesus was a miracle caterer, or pulled a Dawn of the Dead routine after he got strung up and bled like a piece of meat.
Those circles overlap on the venn diagram quite a bit. And quite frankly, they need to have their panties unbunched.
fett on 24/5/2006 at 13:33
RBJ, surely you can see that this is exactly the argument of the book's critics - that it is only a novel. Brown's assertions that the history and documentation are fact has caused the idiots to react in exactly the way you describe, even though it is obvioulsy a work of fiction. There's an easy distinction between the idiots (fans of the book and overjealous christians) who are overreacting to a novel, and the critics who are trying to quell the idiocy.
I could could care less that Brown *claims* that the book is true. I do care however, that probably 60-80% of my students over the last 6 months walk in with the idea that "OMG JEBUS IS IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS!"
I could especially care less how christians react to the book because they should know better and tend to be fucking brain dead on the subject of church (or any) history. As the review in the earlier link pointed out, Brown has virtually created a third group of pseudo-experts who fuck up productive dialogue between christians and normal people. There's a cultural backlash, albeit subtle.
*p.s. Why the Dogma hate? Shit monsters, angels point-blanking guys on a bus, Alanis Morrisette as God...maybe my expectations are too low...
OnionBob on 24/5/2006 at 14:21
Quote Posted by fett
I could could care less
I could especially care less
It's "I
couldn't care less"; "I could care less" doesn't make sense
F Y I
dvrabel on 24/5/2006 at 14:22
Please don't perpetuate the nonsense that the phrase "I could care less..." actually means "I could not care less...".
OnionBob on 24/5/2006 at 14:51
Quote Posted by dvrabel
Please don't perpetuate the nonsense that the phrase "I could care less..." actually means "I could not care less...".
It does.
I'm aware of the dangers of prescriptivist linguistics and I do not believe in the idea of there ever having been a point at which a language (and especially english) is "perfect", but this is such a horrific logical aberration that I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to say it,
especially when they could say the similar, also widely-used phrase ("I couldn't care less"), the original form of the phrase, incidentally, which actually makes logical sense. Just think about it. Apply some actual thought to the words that you are using in that phrase.
There's a lot written about this particular phrase out there, (
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22i+could+care+less%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=) google will sort you out if you're interested, and while yes 99% of the rest of the time i'd defend the right of a phrase like this to exist I don't think that it is justifiable in the slightest in this instance, because it's such offensively ignorant nonsense with an easy, logical alternative.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/5/2006 at 15:01
Quote Posted by fett
Brown's assertions that the history and documentation are
factThat's called M A R K E T I N G, that doesn't mean he believes it himself when he says it, and anyone who takes it at face value is an idiot.
Pardon me for not giving a shit that a two bit hack created a novel which may have added a couple of minor misconceptions to people's understandings of the clusterfuck of preexisting misconceptions that is the catholic church.
Para?noid on 24/5/2006 at 15:03
I couldn't care less, because I am at the lowest point of caring.
I could care less, because there is still a lower amount of care I could achieve.
Rug Burn Junky on 24/5/2006 at 15:12
Quote Posted by OnionBob
this is such a horrific logical aberration that I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to say it,
especially when they could say the similar, also widely-used phrase ("I couldn't care less")
It's logically incorrect when taken at face value, which is why it often fails when written. But when spoken, it's usually said sarcastically, and in that case it's plainly obvious by tone or facial expression that the opposite of what's being said is what is meant, so
saying it is perfectly justifiable.
OnionBob on 24/5/2006 at 15:21
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
It's logically incorrect when taken at face value, which is why it often fails when written. But when spoken, it's usually said sarcastically, and in that case it's plainly obvious by tone or facial expression that the opposite of what's being said is what is meant, so
saying it is perfectly justifiable.
That's an excuse that's cropped up relatively recently to explain away the fact that it is really just a mutation of a more logical form. The times I've heard it said there's been no noticeable sarcastic tone there, the person saying it just doesn't realise what they're saying.
But WHATEVA, you americans are a law unto yourselves
littlek on 24/5/2006 at 15:23
What does being an American have to do with all this? :rolleyes:
