Well I'm glad to see that my original posting got you thinking, and I'm sorry to say that Dandelion is misleading in her "summary" of my ill-review. I never questioned Bradbury's sexual preference once as I simply stated something to the point of Fahrenheit 451 was making "a gay statement". Sorry if the lack of scholarly adjectives offended you, but I didn't call the author a homosexual. Plus, even if I HAD, don' t they have a right to see that? And for the "graffiti" post, I have my right to a view and I wasn't polluting the netwaves with them as I wasn't vulgar in any way. (Once more, even if I had been...) I remain in my position of the last post that this site is a hypocritical joke. To see that I have gotten such a response (and I praise those in agreement with me) is pleasant as I wonder how many other postings have been deleted. Clearly, Bradbury may not be the "100% loved" author this site makes him out to be. But of course, good censorship can make anything appear any way.

If the site is a hypocritical joke, I struggle with why you would waste your time on it. . .

I love the site and the insights I have gotten from so many real fans of Bradbury. People who have read his works seriously, many who have actually worked with Bradbury and know him personally, people who are teachers, writers and professors, and many fans of all fields who are touched by his writing.

My experience with Dandelion is that she has been both responsible and honest, so your assertion that she mis-represented your posting is one I'll abstain from entering into an argument on. I have a history with her and this site, I have none with you. I have seen the kinds of postings that have been deleted in the past, however; and they are not merely editorial differences. They have been crude and inappropriate.

Also, you over-simplify what censorship is. Maybe you should do some serious study on the history and nature of censorship before you bandy about the term so loosely.

While you talk of people's right to read your postings, you seem oblivious to the rights of the webpage sponsors. This is hosted by the publisher who works Bradbury's works right now. They own the site and have the right to determine standards to be met. If you want to post, post in a manner that reflects the nature of the site.

I don't understand why this is so controversial. If I submit an Op-Ed piece to a newspaper, I read several issues and try to align my article with the standards of the newspaper. When I write for a scholarly journal, I request a copy of the journal so I can see what their writing and formatting standards are. I wrote a series of comic books, and was required by the publisher to follow the formatting they required of the writers. When I submitted my Masters Thesis in Philosophy, I had to follow the formatting required by the Graduate Department. Why the same shouldn't apply here is beyond my understanding.

It is not censorship to establish and support standards on a privately hosted site. That is simply a matter of definition.

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 01-27-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 01-27-2003).]

Hey Bradburysmells

What is a 'gay statement'? Is that to be taken as 'gay' in the sense of happy? I don't think F451 is a very happy book by any stretch of the imagination.

Oh by the by, I can't be in agreement with you, because I've not seen the original posting to make up my mind whether I do or not. So please, don't say people have agreed with you, when clearly, they have not.

Frankanger.

>>> To see that I have gotten such a response (and I praise those in agreement with me) is pleasant ....

I think you are confusing interest in the issue of censorship with interest in YOU.

>>> Clearly, Bradbury may not be the "100% loved" author this site makes him out to be.

I'm starting to feel very sorry for you, Bradburysmells. Seems to me you feel so threatened by Bradbury's success and popularity--and I can't see why that should be such an offense.

Mr.Dark::

Do you get the feeling that no matter what logic you use, or reasoning, or "common sense", it just flies out into space lately...?

Everyone,

Not to be too much of a codger but I think today's younger generation uses the term "gay" in a negative context but not necessarily in a sexual orientation context. I believe when something is referred to as "gay," it's merely uncool and there's no actual intent to slur that something's sexual orientation. (Which would be absurd, wouldn't it, if the term was referred to the themes of a book?)

If that was truly bradburysmells intent, then there may have been much ado about nothing.

How's this for a challenge: If Bradburysmells is still lurking around, why not re-post your post in a more generally acceptable format? Then see if your ideas can stand the scrutiny of others?

Pete

Pete

Nard:

Yes. Logic and common sense seem to be in short supply. (Well, at least MY logic and common sense!)

Mr. Dark

Mr. Dark:::

Next week...
Next month...
...you''ll have another ..."off the wall person"... come in from some remote region of Cyberspace, making derogatory comments, swearing, making stupid remarks....and so, what do we do? Welcome him too, in the guise of the "freedom of speech"? Or argue with him, or try to reason with?

Or.... just say, "Deleted".

You see, there is no end...

These people existed in 1620, 25 BC, and will exist in 2945AD.

Consider what Christ said it would be like near the end of the world.... He said it will be like in the days of Noah... people partying, drinking, and mocking the faith... Nothing... Nothing changes ! !

If you go ahead trying to save some soul from his illiterate ways ...and turn him or her to the appreciation of Bradbury prose...that's one thing... but to argue and argue and argue and debate and debate and analyze these silly, asinine questions and comments, is asinine in itself.....

I think Moderator Dandelion has to decide what is the original Intent of the Law here on this Web-Site....Personally, I don't care to have to put up with thugs....

Hey Nard,

Which Christ are you talking about? The fictional Bible version, or the historical one?

Can't we have ONE thread that doesn't end up in a religious debate?!

As far as engaging the "thugs" in argument, or responding to posts or what have you...I'd prefer to judge the POST on its own merits, rather than dismiss the PERSON altogether.



[This message has been edited by WritingReptile (edited 01-27-2003).]

If the post isn't vulgar, and adds some interest to the discussions on Bradbury, I think it's valuable and can even be fun. Obviously frankanger and I have some philosopical and literary disagreements, but he has prompted me to re-think some of my assumptions about literature. So far, I still think there are objective criteria and that literature does not necessarily sink into the black hole of solipsism; but his ideas on the subject are interesting and worth discussing.

I agree with the post that feels sorry for Bradburysmells - he/she obviously doesn't "get it" with Bradbury and literature in general. Hopefully, since there's an apparent interest, he will grow into this stuff.

On the question of whether you want a biblical or historic Jesus you seem to assume they are a necessary contradiction.

I was hoping to post some reactions to "The Chapbook" but that can't be done without reference to religion or spirituality. Can we do it in a spirit of discussion rather than debate? I think so, but even so, sometimes debate is a good thing. It is interesting that so many strings end up discussing/debating religious views. This must be annoying to humanists/secularists (I don't mean these in disparaging terms, I just don't know what other "labels" to use here), many of whom secretly wish we would "grow" out of the "need" for religion.

Mr. Anger,

You're just doing your best to stir up trouble, aren't you? (Wink, wink.)

Pete

frankanger::

First, I haven't heard a useful thing out of your mouth...

So many postings!! I heard it all before, from people that do it better than you.

Dare you say something new? You haven't even answered one of my posts to you ...about centrifugal and centripetal... What's so hard about that?

And about your question about...
"What Christ am I talking about?"

I'll take the Christ who has determined, before the universe was even began, all the days of my life, my very sitting down and standing up, who has determined the struggles I would have, the redemption that would be given, the love of Him I would come to know...and even the time for this very posting. He has determined all these things because... He loves me, a wretched sinner with absolutely no hope if left to my fallen self. I love the First Chapter of Ephesians, especially....that describes all of this so well...

By the way, What's yours? Don't tell me that it's the one found in secular history books that are written by ...your peers?
Gee, what a surprise.....!

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 01-27-2003).]

Gosh.

I found these slightly outdated strings, and I'm not sure if I should add to this one, Bradburysmells' other lengthy string (I'd like to note that on the two lengthy strings he inspired, Bradburysmells only had the cajones and ammuntion to post a total of... twice), or if I should not post at all, because there are only a certain amount of ways a dead horse can be beaten. All the same...

In the matter of religion, I've always found it impossible to truly have an argument that goes anywhere because i believe that the nature of faith is what literature isn't- completely subjective. Any community of like faiths is based on a shared consensus, and of course we all think that the one we believe in is the one that's true. Unlike Mr. Dark's convictions on definining literature, which I agree with, I believe that here, a diferent set of standards apply. Yet, when arguing religion, people always eventually hunker down into seperate corners of 'you-believe/I-believe'. This is more often a matter of denominational quibbles, which, to draw this back, I think Mr. Bradbury has the strength as a writer to look beyond into something more akin to universal truth.

On to censorship, why doesn't Bradburysmells comply with Pete's challenge? I think we all, those most responsible for continuing this thread know the answer to that.
I'm sitting here, listening to Frank Zappa, who had some really strong and contested convictions as to what constitutes Vulgarity and Censorship. Even FZ, I think, would think that if you didn't have a statement worth making, then don't make it. What Dandelion is doing isn't deleting opinions, it's deleting incendiary fluff, put here to get our collective dander up. It can't even be said that Bradburysmells disagreed with we have stated are the merits of F451. He retreated to name-calling rather than actual opinion-stating in order to put the book down.

Mr. Dark and FrankAnger,
I think that the real judgement of something as "literature", (a term which, to FrankAnger's credit, has partially become something which the establish throws around like a Christmas Bonus) should be seperate from not only the personal satisfaction you get from it, but from any opinion you may have of it at all...
There is plenty of stuff that I would say is definably "literature", that I would rather not read, on a level of personal opinion. There are also many books which I'd say are "classics" (again- popular consensus, the test of time)which I find kind of dull and boring. Likewise, there are many books that I enjoy tremendously, but would not call 'literature', as I have learned the term.

For instance, my dirty secret is that I think Jules Verne is not a particularly good writer. All the same, 20,000 Leagues is definably a "classic", to which I agree. I can also see why it could, conceivably, be termed as literature, because of the remarkable strength of Verne's imagination overshadowing everything I don't like about the way he writes. Still, he sits on the shelf unopened, untill I find enough time to consider giving him another shot.

I think that we need to disassociate liking something, or even having something mean a tremendous deal to you, with whether it is literature or not. Academic classification is noble. Getting that unique thrill from a piece of art (another extremely loose and debatable term, shame on me), is wonderfull. The former can be debated, while the latter cannot. But isn't it great when they occur together?

I noticed that perhaps people have moved away from these string, understandably exahusted. I hope I'm not arriving too late to the show, and might be able to get a response...

Most Respectfully,
Dan

Also, Nard,

I know what the words centrifugal and centripetal mean. I admit willingly that I had to look the latter up. I'm not really sure what they have to do with anything in this discussion. There is no snide dig intended here, just someone who isn't bothered by stating that I don't know what you were really alluding to with respects to FrankAnger's stance...

again,
Most Respectfully,
Dan

[This message has been edited by dandelion (edited 02-02-2003).]