Skip to comments.
A Possible Solution to the Harry Potter Problem
marbren
Posted on 11/25/2001 10:07:37 AM PST by marbren
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 last
To: Exigence
Another classy answer. The ad hominem attack (i.e., Pharisee) was an especially nice touch for someone professing to take the high road. ROFL
Oh? This one?
But, only a fool would make assumptions of cause and effect that are only wild speculation.
201
posted on
12/03/2001 7:13:30 PM PST
by
Elsie
To: Exigence
ME:As you have so cleverly seen through my ploy, you did not answer either and so, like the Pharisees before you, you sulk away.
YOU:(2) And, you "sulked" (sic) away without addressing my point.
Main Entry: 1sulk
Pronunciation: 's&lk
Function: intransitive verb
Etymology: back-formation from sulky
Date: 1781
: to be moodily silent
Main Entry: 2sulk
Function: noun
Date: 1804
1 : the state of one sulking -- often used in plural <had a case of the sulks>
2 : a sulky mood or spell <in a sulk>
Methinkest thou needest a new dictionary, perchance...................
or, "What IS your point?"
202
posted on
12/03/2001 7:31:12 PM PST
by
Elsie
To: Elsie
Ok, what's the question? 182 posted on 11/29/01 5:33 AM Pacific by Elsie You've harangued me about the translation thing, I'm STILL waiting for YOUR question..............
203
posted on
12/03/2001 7:44:56 PM PST
by
Elsie
To: Elsie
Methinkest thou needest a new dictionary, perchance................... or, "What IS your point?"Sorry, sister. You used the word incorrectly -- and your cut and paste clearly shows that. "To sulk" is an intransitive verb that shows a state of being. It shows a mood, not a movement. To use it with the adverb "away" makes no sense. One can *be* sulky, but one cannot sulk "away."
If I can help you with anything else, please let me know. :o)
To: Elsie
You've harangued me about the translation thing, I'm STILL waiting for YOUR question.............. I can see why we probably disagree on many things because you seem to be very literal. I asked for your "reaction" to what I said. You know, as in a "conversation." Agree. Disagree. Offer lucid points. Although, I will have to say, I am finding our discourses increasingly boring -- so I'm not promising any further responses.
Ya know, some folks just "agree to disagree" and don't devote such energies condemning folks with other opinions on a subject such as, say, Harry Potter. I know, I know... radical idea. Live and let live and all. (Said in my best "British" accent. *g*)
To: Elsie
But, only a fool would make assumptions of cause and effect that are only wild speculation.LOL! Two small problems:
First, I never called you a fool or even compared you to a fool. I merely said if one did "make assumptions of cause and effect that are only wild speculation," he/she would be foolish. I added that you could speculate *if* you wanted to. Are you saying that's what you did? I wouldn't presume to do say what you did or didn't do in this case.
And, second, I never claimed to be on the "high road," (read, "holier-than-thou road" in this discussion). I just want to have a differing opinion without others devoting such energy to condemning that opinion. So, this is easily resolvable. You stop the condemnation, I'll continue to enjoy HP, and then there's nothing left for us to talk about. Fair enough?
To: Exigence
You stop the condemnation, Again, you accuse.
Show where.
207
posted on
12/04/2001 4:07:46 PM PST
by
Elsie
To: Elsie
.....remember, a REAL TarBaby would remain silent.
208
posted on
12/04/2001 4:09:51 PM PST
by
Elsie
To: Elsie
Big yawn. Like I said, boring and no longer fruitful.
Besides, I can see from the post above that you're now posting to yourself. It's probably better that way: you're much more likely to agree with what was said. *vbg*
Toodles. (P.S. I'll leave the last word to you. I *know* you won't be able to resist. *vvbg*)
To: Exigence
I *know* you won't be able to resist. Ahhhhhhh........ a self-fulfilling prophecy!
(At least NOW I can stay on subject)
But who will now play 'Calvin' to my 'Hobbs'?
210
posted on
12/05/2001 6:50:31 PM PST
by
Elsie
To: Elsie
(Note to self: I guess I'll NEVER find out how I was condemning folks now............)
211
posted on
12/05/2001 7:00:46 PM PST
by
Elsie
To: marbren
ENOUGH WITH HARRY POTTER....IT WAS A GREAT MOVIE. Yeesh. They even celebrate Christmas in the movie. I don't get it. LET IT GO.
212
posted on
12/05/2001 7:02:20 PM PST
by
Hildy
To: marbren
If you're looking for ready agreement from fellow Christians.......especially evangelicals..........look elsewehere. You willingly sold out your beliefs for "entertainment" for yourselves and your kids. YOU should have damned-well known better. Sugar coat this issue or hide behind the "sure, right.......Harry Potter......boogah boogah! LOL" crowd (and I'm sorry to say they're legion on this forum) all you want.
Either you believe in the tenets of your faith or you don't. Anything else is unmitigated bullshit.
To: RightOnline
You better watch out. Some legalistic Christians probably think you are going to hell because you use the word "bulls**t"
214
posted on
12/06/2001 1:26:13 PM PST
by
marbren
To: marbren
That's fine. They also don't like it much when I tell jerks to go f**k themselves. I save that for people without a spine, ya see.
To: Exigence
"Harry Pooter falls in the same category as many other fantasy entertainment." Hmmm, Fantasy and Harry "Pooter" in the same comment...
I am reasonably sure there is a Dirty Joke in there somewhere!
(Or at least some reference to Freud!)
To: marbren
Several posters have mentioned Tolkien and Lewis...how can you even place two highly regarded Christian authours in the same category as Rowling?! The Chronicles of Narnia were actually written for children, whereas JK Rowling has said she wrote the Harry Potter books for adults. Anyone who has read Book IV should be able to see that some children shouldn't be reading about violent death or evil magicians filling cauldrons with blood. WHY are people so willing to turn a blind eye to something that is so blatantly evil? I enjoyed books 1 and 2, was a little concerned about book 3, and a bit perturbed about book 4. I'm not sure I want to read book 5--which was supposed to be out this past July, by the way, but I think all the money has given Ms Rowling a bit of writer's block. There is a theatre near my house and I have seen many parents coming out of the theatre with screaming kids in tow, frightened by something they've seen in the movie. Hmmm...if the parent really wanted to see the movie, they should have hired a babysitter. I personally haven't seen the movie and am not sure if I will. I just don't want to be that close to witchcraft, thanks very much. I think HP is an issue for a reason, it's showing that our minds aren't totally depraved and that we still believe in challenging good vs. evil. Doesn't that tell you there's a battle raging somewhere?
217
posted on
12/06/2001 3:53:51 PM PST
by
expatJP
To: marbren
I have the real solution. Quit talking about it. Like the monkey said after he swallowed the bowling ball, "This to shall pass">
218
posted on
12/06/2001 3:58:12 PM PST
by
vladog
Comment #219 Removed by Moderator
To: Cernunnos
Quit thinking like a child..........or worse, trying to bait me into the same. If the concepts involved here are too deep for you, stick with NPR.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160, 161-180, 181-200, 201-220 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson