John Adams

First, to the extent your response is comprehensible, you continue a remarkable streak of being wrong: I read the book. Second, the author says it is FICTION! For God's sake man, you're not a well person. Third, regarding Dan Brown's puffery, do you also think that Teller can't talk? Keep ignoring the all the other arguments: it adds to your dwindling "credibility."

You mean, the 3 people (including you) who don't know this is a work of fiction? Actually, the reason it's made into a movie is because a zillion people - mostly Christian no doubt- bought, read, and enjoyed the book, and will also see the movie. And of the Catholics I've talked to, not one of them is stupid enough to think this is dangerous; they all know what you can't get: it's fiction.

Actually, no. It doesn't. Fiction is make believe. I can start writing a book about the inner city in 1910 right now and never open a single reference. That's fiction. I can write the same story after doing 5 months of research. And it could still be fiction. Fiction is a wide umbrella. Dan Brown wrote a book of make believe. You take it seriously, and even consider whether it's scholarship, which is amusing. One time a boy named Holden Caulfield ran away from his boarding school and.... Here's another: a young white boy with a sense of adventure met a slave and travelled down the Mississippi. Those scholars should be ashamed of themselves, leading me to believe their stories are true. You know, every time a bell rings, a fairy gets its wings, or at least so says another work of scholarship. One other work, the Bible, is full of inconsistencies. Oh the horror.

When did I say I "accepted" the DaVinci Code "as truth"? You need to work on reading comprehension. I'll say this again... take as much time as you need reading it: the DaVinci Code is FICTION. The author says it's fiction. It's sold as fiction. That Brown lists sources does not make the book non-fiction. It just means he relied on the works of others to write his fictional book. Fiction is make-believe. It ain't real. The DaVinci Code is not real. Nowhere does it say otherwise. Is the word "fiction" confusing you? Who feeds you your thoughts? You may want to seriously consider whether or not it benefits you to say you reach your conclusions on your own. Maybe you should bite the bullet and admit a source for all this nonsense.

Aren't you the genius who compared the moderators to Our Gang for juvenile behavior? Thanks for raising the level of discourse.

The Inquirer is the local paper here in Philadelphia. No doubt, you meant the Enquirer. Next time, try to get your insult right. If you think I didn't read the bibliography to a CLEAR WORK OF FICTION, guess what: you're right! All the things you cite, assuming they are true, further what I'm sure Brown says in his cover page to the D.C. "This is a work of fiction... yada yada." YOU are the one treating it as true. Not me. I know it's just a piece of fiction with some germs of truth in it. I've never heard anyone say the DaVinci Code is gospel, as you assert. Most people see it for what it is, a work of the imagination. Next you'll start spouting off about satanism and pagan worship in Harry Potter.

It's not portrayed as fiction? What book did you read? As to the rest of your reply, the book doesn't portray Jesus as the deceiver, it portrays elements of the Church as the deceivers. There's a big difference. You didn't answer what your feelings are on all the other inconsistencies of works of fiction, including the Bible. Do you get your panties in a wringer over them too?

***SPOLIERS FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO READ THE D.C. BELOW*** "Strikes at the root..." Why? Because it says Jesus had sex with someone? Is there something in the DaVinci Code that undermines Jesus' message of love? All it is is a mystery story of a bunch of humans. Their interaction with Jesus is only in the context of finding out that JC had sex and bore children through Mary Magdelene. I don't get why a piece of fiction would get you so upset. Do the inconsistencies/contradictions in the Bible, which is in most people's view another work of fiction albiet a more important one, get you this worked up?

Do Catholics read this stuff? Did you read this stuff?

The idea of the book was creatively woven together. The germs of truth in it made it plausible enough that it made a fun read. I believe that the DaVinci Code movie will be far superior to the book, because I thought the writing sucked ass. As to whether it's true, again, there are germs of truth in it. I didn't see it as an attack on the Catholic Church. It was just a book.

Even better that one from each party screwed this one up, if indeed this is a gaffe. I see that article quoted what Kerry did. I wonder what Lugar said. What morons. I mean, it's only national security.

The co-opting of the Pope is brazen, considering all of the criticism the Pope had of Capitalism in general and the War in Iraq.

I only have a second to respond to this inane post. viagra propecia Thank you for your time.

Cincy doesn't take kindly to that kind of rational thought.

"Lob me one" in the context of our discussion should just be tabled NOW. This is a bizzarre thread. We gave Beaux his/her little batch of attention.

If I stuck up for you, it was an accident. He posted a thread quoting your PM to him in detail, but leaving your name off. Now he said that post was yours. By saying "out," I wasn't implying you had changed preference for the things you put in your mouth from cigarettes.

I'm just jealous because you didn't post my pithy PM comments about you.

Nice of you to now "out" him. At least in the original post, you left his name out. Keep up your banner work. As to "positive" responses, you're getting all the hugs you missed a a tyke. You should feel very happy. I'm sure it won't be long before you write a post to let us all know that you are leaving the board. A final "look at me." Then another on your return... under another assumed name. And on and on.

Athleletes swear? Forget the steroid hearings. Congress: do something. Woe to the children.

Goodie. Another "look at me- I need attention" post. I hear they have "hugging" clinics. Maybe that will fill the need for attention you so crave.

Try "competitor." I saw DiMarco at one point spit out a big loogey. On the green. He should be banned for a month. Oh wait. He's white. You probably don't follow that logic. Try this one. I saw Singh say "Damn it" after a bad shot. What a terrible example for black children everywhere.

I have never seen a player smash their club into the ground after a missed shot. And wow, it really does set a horrific example for children. The humanity.

Man. If you're the same surfmeister from 2001 PPP, remember the days when you just kept yourself to maligning other groups. Glad you've expanded your repertoire. "Black Power Fist of Anger" "Black Panther" Right. That's what it's all about. No one ever pumps their fist in celebration. It's all about Black Power. Another Black Power supporter

Yeah. We think for ourselves.

Nice that you generalize Libertarians like you generalize protestants. First, legalizing pot would be much ado about nothing. People who want pot already have it, and cause little trouble. People who don't want it, don't. It is preferable, from a societal perspective, to alchohol in every way, and yet booze is legal. Second, while elgalizing drugs is something most Libertarians believe in, it is incorrectly perceived as the marquee issue. Most Libertarians think crazy things like restraining government growth is mch more important than legalizing pot. Third, there may be "hedonists" in the Libertarian movement, but most are not. Most are responsible and thoughtful people who believe in freedom from government. I'm a Libertarian. I've never smoked pot. I have a house. Family. Etc. I go to a church. I am civically active. All the Libertarians I know are like me (well, maybe some have smoked but but who even cares about that?). Fourth, it's hard to call the third largest party in the US "marginal," especially with the factions forming between the moral Republicans and the small gov't Republicans.