The Town of Odyssey

Sapphire wrote:
It is not! It is probably one of the best Christian films around.

And yet it comes no where close to measuring up technically to secular movies made with similar resources.

I did like Luther but I disagree with using the term Christian film, why can't Christians just make films that are good instead of focusing on making sure each one they make falls within a specific category? I think that the Christian film industries focus on content has meant that the craft of film...

This isn't a debate so I'm moving it out the debate area.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Congratulations! I'm free! - in jest, of course.

Thank you very much

We're not saying you have to include like Tancredo or Kucinich but Giulliani? He's a major candidate and Mcain, Ron Paul and Edwards need to be on there too.

They're not essentially taking away our access to the content- they're just switching to a new medium. But meh- they abridge the first amendment by regulating the content of the broadcasts anyway so why should you be angry- censorship is already there. The problem is that the government decides who...

You also left out Giuliani and Ron Paul.

I believe you are thinking of freedom of speech, Which is part of the first amendment. but I was referring to allocation of frequencies, radio and TV call letters, and the like. :) It doesn't matter, the government shouldn't control those things. Would we let the government allocate printing presse...

Darcie wrote:I think it's a government issue because the FCC regulates the airwaves and media.

Well maybe they shouldn't. Hasn't any one heard of the first amendment?

I didn't read it in the first place because of occultic magic. :noway: I understand that, I'm just wondering why you have another reason not to read the book now that the author has supposedly "outed" a character. I say supposedly because no where in the book does it even suggest that the...

jasonjannajerryjohn wrote:Just another reason why I don't read her books!

So you don't read books to avoid non-references to objectionable things?

I think that it's stupid. In no way do the books suggest that. I think that Rowling is simply trying to appear open minded and tolerant. There is no way she could have thought about it in the first six books since Dumbledore's past is not explored at all until the last book. Even in the seventh book...