Raf

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.

I want it to be known that I am most definitely not one of the moderators here.

Dove, I can only speak for myself, and not for the overly-religious, legalistic, morally superior, condescending decisions made by others... Ummm... no, it doesn't work that way. You don't want to be insulting, and I think we all see and appreciate that. But you're doing it nonetheless. You won't speak for the decisions anyone else makes, but you will not contribute to the dumbing down of society. You won't speak for anyone else on this, but you won't participate in this devilish deception. You won't speak for anyone else on this, but you won't surrender your responsibility to be vigilant. You won't speak for anyone else, but you won't reject scripture. In saying each of those things, you are saying that those Christians who disagree with you are contributing to the dumbing down of society, participating in a devilish deception, surrendering their responsibility to be vigilant, and rejecting scripture. If that's what you think, fine, stand by it. But you can't argue that it's not what you're saying, because it is precisely what you're saying.

Umm, yes! That's exactly what it was.

whoops. fixing... ok, fixed. Of course, now my clue is reeeeeal obscure.

Actually, Dove, I think your criticisms went beyond the book; you basically painted the book as a tool of the devil designed to distract people from their Biblical responsibility to be vigilant. It's a logical extension that anyone who enjoys the books has surrendered that Biblical responsibility, a contention I reject.

Ghost Tony Goldwyn Joshua

I hope I was not short with you or disrespectful during that time, rascal (but I probably was. ;)--> ) Ah! My pensieve is alerting me to the creation of the new thread as we speak... At least, I think that's what a pensieve does. Maybe it's my Spider-sense, which, for some reason, is acceptable.

I don't see why another thread needs to be started. This one was for those anticipating the release of the book. Now that the book has been released, why not continue the conversation here?

And the award for most astonishing link goes to... Seegar Tom!

There's a spoiler thread in the Gallery and Reading Room.

It is not The Killing Fields. My favorite line in Notting Hill is "she kisses like a nymphomaniac on death row."

"N-C-C-1-7-0-1. No bloody A, B, C or D."

Oh. Okay, I get it now. We've surrendered our Biblical call to vigilance. Gotcha.

Aw, be nice. Best as I can tell, all Dovey said was he doesn't like the stuff. Gotta be okay with that. Dovey, are you implying here that anyone who does like Harry Potter is allowing the "spiritual kingdom" to hold fascination over their lives (as opposed to, say, just enjoying a well-written book)?

How's your dic tation machine, how's your dic tation machine... You are correct, sir. Your move.