If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place — Page 18

Warbler said:

was it necessary to quote bingo?  I have him on ignore,  I don't want to read any of his posts.

Well, he mentioned Bowie.

yeah so? 

I like Bowie.

Ziggy Stardust said:

I like Bowie.

POTD

yeah so?

Ric Olie said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

I like Bowie.

POTD

Pissing On The Dead?

Ziggy Stardust said:

Ric Olie said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

I like Bowie.

POTD

Pissing On The Dead?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=potd

Warbler said:

yeah so?

Bowie has a very big kewl beans factor.

TV's Frink said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

Ric Olie said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

I like Bowie.

POTD

Pissing On The Dead?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=potd

(bows)

Ziggy Stardust said:

TV's Frink said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

Ric Olie said:

Ziggy Stardust said:

I like Bowie.

POTD

Pissing On The Dead?

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=potd

(bows)

I think you've misunderstood.

How would you know what's going on?

You're not Ric.

I have recommended a feature to Jay (which he was working on anyway) to help people like Warb but ultimately anyone here has the right to quote whoever they like.

Even if they don't like Frink.

I'm not a fan of that suggestion.  I want people like LexX to have no choice but to read my awesomicity.  Either that, or make a rule like Rob suggests.

A School Board in Virginia voted a couple weeks back to remove the first Sherlock Holmes novel, "A Study In Scarlett" from the 6th grade reading list, because the book contains much that is anti-Mormon.

Had coffee with some English teachers this morning, and it was the main topic of conversation. Words like "censorship" and "book burning" got bandied about. It annoys me.

Perhaps because I'm a real teacher (science) I was actually interested in the facts. Here are some:

1. Every single article I've found refers to the book as "banned." This is a lie. It is not in any way prohibited, not removed from the library, and in fact is still on the 8th grade reading list.
2. Most articles make the dismissive claim that someone "decided" the book was "allegedly" offensive to Mormons. This is funny to me that anyone who defends literature doesn't even bother to read the book, which gives the Mormon's a supernatural-powered secret police that enforces child rape on pain of death. You can approve, disaprove, apoligize for, or explain away, but there's no denying that the novel is intentionally and clearly anti-Mormon.
3. The book is just not very good. It's a piss poor mystery and Doyle really hadn't figured out the formula yet. The person who brought the complaint to the school board even pointed out that "Hound of the Baskervilles" is a much better book to serve the same role of introducing mystery novels.

Is there a way to talk about what is and isn't appropriate in education without knee-jerk reactionism? Is it debateable that a piece of Victorian-era intolerance is perhaps more appropriate for slightly older students? Sure, but is it too much to ask for ONE article somewhere in the news to get event he most basic facts right?

Interesting points you make there.  Though I've never read the book, I know that it talks about the mysterious "Danites."  As a Mormon, I'm not a fan of the portrayal.  I'm surprised and appreciative of your defense of its removal.  I myself am not into "censorship," but if an appropriate body of leadership debates decides that a book is too offensive (such as a school board and public debate), they should not provide the book for their students, nor require it for reading.  However, if the student arrives at school with a purchased book, there is no reason to stop him/her from reading it.

Old books are old and old authors had old fashioned ideas.

Here, here.  I remember hearing about banning Huckleberry Finn in schools because it used the "N" word, in spite of the fact that the book clearly opposes slavery and the mistreatment of blacks.  That word alone is so offensive to liberal minds, even if the message is one they agree with, that we have to purge it from everything but rap/hip hop.  But if something is highly sexual or offensive towards one of the PC unprotected groups (see my guide to belittling others' beliefs), well that's great stuff and you need to stop being so sensitive.

I've read "A Study In Scarlett" many years ago.   While I don't remember too many details of it,  I don't remember reading it and going "whoa! this is really offensive stuff to Mormons!".   But for all I know it is offensive to Mormons.   I would be against censoring it, but taking it off a 6th grade reading list?  ok I guess.   Still I would recommend just accepting it as a book of its time.    It was written in 1887, things were acceptable back then that aren't today, for good reason.   If you do want to be a Sherlock Holmes fan, I would recommend reading it.   The book tells the story of how Watson met Holmes and how they rented the rooms at 221 B. Baker Street, and it tells of their first adventure together.  However,  the best Sherlock Holmes books are "The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes", and "The Memoirs Of Sherlock Holmes".    I highly recommend them.       

Warbler said:

  But for all I know it is offensive to Mormons.   I would be against censoring it, but taking it off a 6th grade reading list?  ok I guess.   Still I would recommend just accepting it as a book of its time.    It was written in 1887, things were acceptable back then that aren't today, for good reason.  

Doyle intentionally wrote the book to be shocking and sensational. It's a lurid little potboiler, and not much of a mystery.

darth_ender said:

... That word alone is so offensive to liberal minds, even if the message is one they agree with, that we have to purge it from everything but rap/hip hop.  ...

It's not offensive to conservative minds? And school boards and/or text book publishers have the power to ban words from hip hop? ?

It certainly is offensive to my mind.  I just find it somewhat hypocritical that I could tell you you're a GD MF and that Christians are the source of all evil in this world, but even using the N word in context of the time (as mentioned before, in Huck Finn) that regardless of anything else, the book must be burned.  I seriously think there is nothing more offensive to so many liberals than a white person using the N word, even innocently.  Notice I don't type it here because I know what will result from my using it.  Nevermind the fact that I have many black friends and co-workers.  Nevermind the fact that I've seen virtually every other offensive expression used here.  That word alone is the only word some liberals even consider a swear word, and it's one so offensive that they would burn you at the stake if they could.

As far as banning, I'm not just talking about school boards.  An independently-run newspaper at the University of Arizona had a black man's comic on the funny pages that used that word.  You would not believe the backlash.  There is backlash everywhere that word is used, unless it's in hip hop or used by Chris Tucker.

TheBoost said:

Warbler said:

  But for all I know it is offensive to Mormons.   I would be against censoring it, but taking it off a 6th grade reading list?  ok I guess.   Still I would recommend just accepting it as a book of its time.    It was written in 1887, things were acceptable back then that aren't today, for good reason.  

Doyle intentionally wrote the book to be shocking and sensational. It's a lurid little potboiler, and not much of a mystery.

nonetheless, it is the first Sherlock Holmes story.   There is value in that.    But I agree, it is not that good.