![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Or, “How Oliver Stone broke into the movies”.
I’ve never seen it, no. But I love the Queen’s outfit.
You can’t hide,
This is dF
I’ve never seen it, no. But I love the Queen’s outfit.
You can’t hide,
This is dF
Oct. 6th, 2009
It’s been true since the beginning that the rockinrolls is as much about stage presence as it is about the actual music (Chuck Berry’s duck walk, Jerry Lee Lewis setting his piano on fire, etc). This was especially true during the first 15 years or so, when every third garage in America had a band in it playing more or less the same songs, or writing songs that sounded like them. A unique stage gimmick helped set you apart.
Of course, often they only set you apart long enough to get you yr allotted 15 minutes of fame.
The Cavemen are a classic example.
More footage and keyboardist Vic Rose’s oral history of the band here on WFMU.
Come to bedrock,
This is dF
Of course, often they only set you apart long enough to get you yr allotted 15 minutes of fame.
The Cavemen are a classic example.
More footage and keyboardist Vic Rose’s oral history of the band here on WFMU.
Come to bedrock,
This is dF
THIS BIBLE KILLS LIBERALS
Oct. 6th, 2009 06:31 pmITEM: The people who brought you Conservapedia (like Wikipedia, but without all the liberal bias) reportedly have a new project: to develop a conservative translation of the Bible.
Said translation must meet the following ten (10) guidelines:
Detailed examples of Bible liberalness here.
For some reason, the Conservapedia site seems to be offline as I post this (libtard trolls, probably – they do that cos they is hateful and godless), so I haven’t seen this for myself. But I’m assuming it's for real (with the caveat that some of the Interwub’s snarkier constituency has been known to do some covert wiki editing on Conservapedia).
Anyway, I don’t particularly have a problem with this. I’m too fascinated by the ongoing efforts of the hardcore conservative faithful to escape the media-based “biases” that contradict their worldview by constructing a complete alternate media network (from talk radio and Fox News to Worldnet Daily, Conservapedia, MyChurch and QubeTV, to say nothing of publishing copies of The Origin Of The Species with rebuttals endorsed by Kirk Cameron) that reinforces that worldview.
So really, given all the effort over the last 10 years towards that goal, it’s a wonder no one’s thought of a conservative Bible sooner.
And why not? Editing, censoring and revising the Bible to conveniently reflect contemporary narrow-minded ideologies is a time-honored tradition. (It’s called the King James Version for a reason, Jim.) And we already have the Green Bible and Extreme Teen Bible. So why not the No Spin Zone Bible?
Fine by me. It’s just one more thing I can cheerfully point to when people ask me why I’m a firm agnostic.
F*** the meek,
This is dF
Said translation must meet the following ten (10) guidelines:
1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[2]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle"
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[4] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables: explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities
2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity
3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[2]
4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[3] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle"
5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[4] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census
6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.
7. Express Free Market Parables: explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning
8. Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story
9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels
10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities
Detailed examples of Bible liberalness here.
For some reason, the Conservapedia site seems to be offline as I post this (libtard trolls, probably – they do that cos they is hateful and godless), so I haven’t seen this for myself. But I’m assuming it's for real (with the caveat that some of the Interwub’s snarkier constituency has been known to do some covert wiki editing on Conservapedia).
Anyway, I don’t particularly have a problem with this. I’m too fascinated by the ongoing efforts of the hardcore conservative faithful to escape the media-based “biases” that contradict their worldview by constructing a complete alternate media network (from talk radio and Fox News to Worldnet Daily, Conservapedia, MyChurch and QubeTV, to say nothing of publishing copies of The Origin Of The Species with rebuttals endorsed by Kirk Cameron) that reinforces that worldview.
So really, given all the effort over the last 10 years towards that goal, it’s a wonder no one’s thought of a conservative Bible sooner.
And why not? Editing, censoring and revising the Bible to conveniently reflect contemporary narrow-minded ideologies is a time-honored tradition. (It’s called the King James Version for a reason, Jim.) And we already have the Green Bible and Extreme Teen Bible. So why not the No Spin Zone Bible?
Fine by me. It’s just one more thing I can cheerfully point to when people ask me why I’m a firm agnostic.
F*** the meek,
This is dF
