Raf

They are siblings.

Katie Holmes was a joke. She looked like she should be sent back to Dawson's Creek. (Was her name Dawson in the movie? Was that a joke?)

Murder is against the 10 Commandments, and if you treat it as a game, you start your children down a long and dangerous path... Sorry, wrong thread.

Move along, move along, nothing to see here, move along...

Marvin has arrived in Fort Lauderdale!

Paul Giamatti Donnie Brasco Michael Madsen

Umm, I knew that. My reply was a joke as well.

I haven't read the book or this thread yet, but to be on the safe side, I think every post should have the spoiler warning on top, just in case anyone clicks on the most recent post and doesn't realize this is a spoiler thread. I expect to be joining this conversation soon. Raf

An excellent article that treats both sides of the Christian-Harry Potter debate with respect.

I haven't seen it in so long, but it's still one of the funniest scenes in any movie ever. :)-->

I am cracking up just remembering that scene. I'll wait to see if someone else gets it first.

I didn't get that impression.

Cool beans.

I went phoenetically. Sydney, Sidney, Sid Knee. Whatever, yeah, you got it.

It's not the same thing, Dove.

I already explained my logic in disagreeing with yours. You can't say "I won't speak for you, but I won't drop my Biblical responsibility" without accusing those who disagree with you of dropping theirs.

Ok, here's the giveaway. Why would anyone want to do that? Sequels suck!

Eddie Murphy Shrek John Lithgow

I think it's perfectly fine to discuss why someone doesn't like Harry Potter books, and I don't even think we needed a separate thread to do it. My only contention is that reading and enjoying Harry Potter does not make someone a less-vigilant Christian ignoring Biblical edicts while contributing to the dumbing down of society.

The one thing I would add to the list of approved names is people whose names are already in the public record for the matter being discussed. For example, Doug McMullen and exTWI (whose name I know as well as most people here, though I choose not to use it here). In journalism, for what it's worth, we do not name victims of sexual assault. However, if the victim of sexual assault and/or misconduct files a civil suit, their names are fair game. With that as a guide, I would argue in favor of naming anyone involved in civil or criminal litigation (except sex assault/misconduct in criminal cases), and anyone who has made their criticism of TWI sufficiently public by name (John Juedes, for example). This doesn't apply if the names are on the record in a different context. Hypothetically, if anyone I named above is being accused of something that has nothing to do with how and why they've made their names public, err on the side of caution.

One would wish that this were the case, and I'm sure it would be a useful defense for Paw. But the point is it would be a defense, which means it would get that far. Not a good thing. We're better off not putting him in that position in the first place, and that defense has not always proven to be a successful one. Also, views and opinions are protected. Allegations of fact are not.

Nope. And I won't read it either. But I will read Harry Potter because, silly me, I can see the difference.

Wow. Twice in one day. Three times, if you count In Memoriam.

Comic books, plays, movies, all secular entertainment can be seen as a distraction from Biblical admonitions. Ah, but this one is promoting witchcraft, you say? Harry Potter has as much in common with the real Wiccan religion as it has with nuclear physics.