Democrats SUCK!!

[me]

You don't seriously expect us to believe you've ever read a book, do you?   

At one time I read rather than watch TV and would read 2 to 3 books a week depending on the size of the book. No, they weren't kids books so don't even go there.

[me]

Just like changes are made to books.  As we learn more (most of us, not you of course), it is necessary to make modifications to reflect that new knowledge.  That's why encyclopedias used to issue annual updates.

There is a difference between "new" knowledge and "changed" facts, omitting or changing things.

[Locutus]

There is a difference between "new" knowledge and "changed" facts, omitting or changing things.

[Exterminator]

There is a difference between "new" knowledge and "changed" facts, omitting or changing things.

If you were secretly a liberal whose goal it is to make conservatives look stupid, you couldn't possibly be doing a better job.   

[me]

If you were secretly a liberal whose goal it is to make conservatives look stupid, you couldn't possibly be doing a better job.   

I do not consider changed or omitted things "new" when it concerns the past and is done because someone, no matter who, is trying to keep the actual occurences from being known by younger people who don't know any better.

[Locutus]

I do not consider changed or omitted things "new" when it concerns the past and is done because someone, not matter who, is trying to keep the actual occurences from being known by younger people who don't know any better.

Spoken like a true expert in revisionist history. 

[me]

Spoken like a true expert in revisionist history. 

When it happens to history I know about and know what went on yer danm straight. Was a 20 yr old here in the 60's to know what went on? Can they be easily told something from the past differently and know that wasn't actually what happened?

[Locutus]

When it happens to history I know about and know what went on yer danm straight. Was a 20 yr old here in the 60's to know what went on? Can they be easily told something from the past differently and know that wasn't actually what happened?

LOL!!  Examples?

[Y]

Man, ole' 'Me' never changes, does she.   

[libby]

I do not consider changed or omitted things "new" when it concerns the past and is done because someone, not matter who, is trying to keep the actual occurences from being known by younger people who don't know any better.

Me, those younger people live and learn just like we did.  And, there are still libraries and bookstores and teachers. ( I pray we don't one day have our own Fahrenheit 451.)

As for me, regarding books, I only use the internet to find out if a book is available and/or other general information. To get my hands on one to prove or study something, I go to the local library and/or bookstore. That way I can see for myself whether or not what I want has been abridged. Here's one example of why I like books I can hold in my hands:

I read a brief book review in the Washington Post that sounded interesting to me, so I went to the local Barnes & Noble and bought a copy. I found it very interesting for a while, but finally decided I didn't agree with the author and put the book aside. But one thing he wrote about a book by another author fascinated me, so I went to the county library near my home. They didn't have a copy, but volunteered to check with other county libraries to see if they could find one, and the next day called and said they would have it for me the next day. It was the only copy in the library system, and it was an original. I would've loved to buy it but of course it was not for sale. However, the librarian said it was available in bookstores, so I went to Barnes & Noble, and they had one copy:  an "unabridged republication of the book originally published by Simon & Schuster, New York, in 1982." That was important because it would not be worth its weight in beans if it had been altered. Why was that so important? Because of the subject, which is still current today. In case you're interested, the title is: The Cosmic Code, by Heinz R. Pagels, and it is classified as Cosmology.

[Locutus]

Man, ole' 'Me' never changes, does she.   

 

[me]

  Me, those younger people live and learn just like we did.  And, there are still libraries and bookstores and teachers. ( I pray we don't one day have our own Fahrenheit 451.)

As for me, regarding books, I only use the internet to find out if a book is available and/or other general information. To get my hands on one to prove or study something, I go to the local library and/or bookstore. That way I can see for myself whether or not what I want has been abridged. Here's one example of why I like books I can hold in my hands:

I read a brief book review in the Washington Post that sounded interesting to me, so I went to the local Barnes & Noble and bought a copy. I found it very interesting for a while, but finally decided I didn't agree with the author and put the book aside. But one thing he wrote about a book by another author fascinated me, so I went to the county library near my home. They didn't have a copy, but volunteered to check with other county libraries to see if they could find one, and the next day called and said they would have it for me the next day. It was the only copy in the library system, and it was an original. I would've loved to buy it but of course it was not for sale. However, the librarian said it was available in bookstores, so I went to Barnes & Noble, and they had one copy:  an "unabridged republication of the book originally published by Simon & Schuster, New York, in 1982." That was important because it would not be worth its weight in beans if it had been altered. Why was that so important? Because of the subject, which is still current today. In case you're interested, the title is: The Cosmic Code, by Heinz R. Pagels, and it is classified as Cosmology.

It's good to know there are some unabridged still available but they are, unfortunately, getting few and far between. I too keep seeing Fahrenheit 451 flash before my eyes, watched it several times. I may check that book out. Thanks

[me]

It appears as though those who have read it gave it great reviews, most 5 stars, (78%), and I've found that rare. Now the search for the original begins.

[Exterminator]

Man, ole' 'Me' never changes, does she.   

Dude...it's like talking to a rock.   

[Y]

I do not consider changed or omitted things "new" when it concerns the past and is done because someone, not matter who, is trying to keep the actual occurences from being known by younger people who don't know any better.

Spoken like a true expert in revisionist history. 

Yup!

'Me' has long exposed herself as a hard core 'conspiracy theorist'.

Those sort of folks inherently operate on assumptive logical fallacies.

For her, only the 'original' can possibly be 'true' - regardless that the 'original' will have gone through several revisions before publication - and that any further revisions are not done for correction or updated information, but only to quash the 'truth'.

They suffer from fatal intellectual flaws and there's no room for them to be persuaded by reality.