Talk:Abimelech Society

Reminds me of Fahrenheit 451. ;-) Editor at RWSchumi on Ducati? 15:03, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * But in a nice way. :) Susan  Purrrrr  15:15, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * Whatever the book, burning a book is burning a book. Even if Copyright has expired. Editor at RWSchumi on Ducati? 15:20, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * STAND BACK PEOPLE! THIS CONVERSATION IS ABOUT TO CAUSE DRAMA! ;p. --82.44.64.173 P.S., I've just realised that it is exceptionally difficult to simultaneously stick out one's tongue and wink.
 * Agree with Editor@CP. -- 15:31, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * Imagine if they did something constructive instead, such as distribute some books of their own. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:35, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * Actually they do and the page has been updated to reflect the fact. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis Marauding 15:41, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * Any and all book burnings are an abomination. Period.  Also, on a lighter note, I have a cousin Avimelach.--PalMD --You don't know harsh! 17:53, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * A fine sentiment PalMD. However, on a purely pragmatic note books are "pulped" all the time, some find their way into other books, others find their way into cigarette papers and firelighters. I think the motive behind the burning of a book is worthy of consideration. Is it to suppress information or is it because it is not worthy of being read? Just because a book has a hard cover does it make it more valuable than a thick magazine with a stiff cover, or a thin pamphlet or even a single page handbill? How then do we define what constitutes a book? People burn newspapers all the time, are they any less valuable than a book? They are often valuable documents of record. We know that copies of newspapers are kept, but copies of books are also kept in the Library of Congress and the British Museum. I'm not arguing for burning of any books but I think we need to consider what we are arguing against. (I may also be playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here.) [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 18:47, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * P.S. The whole issue gets even more complicated when we consider digital publishing. And what if the National Socialists decided to place copies of Mein Kampf in schools, prisons and hotels?
 * P.P.S. What if we considered something maybe even more valuable, such as a human body? Is burning or burial OK or should we ensure that every useful part be kept for transplants? Is a single book more important than a single human body (even if slightly foxed). BTW  my cadaver is going to medical research. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 19:14, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * Burning a book makes a particular statement, just as burning a flag is different from disposing of "properly".--PalMD --You don't know harsh! 19:18, 19 February 2008 (EST)
 * "Making a statement" depends on where and how it is made. Burning a flag on the streets or in front of an embassy makes a particular statement, if it is done in a private incinerator without any special fanfare is it making the same statement? If the flag was contaminated with smallpox wouldn't that make it proper disposal? I understand that many people have an emotional attachment to books, which comes from when books were special as they were in short supply. A book was probably the only way to disseminate information or thought. I believe that modern mass publishing and the creation of the Internet has cheapened the value of books (rightly or wrongly). Important ideas may be contained in a single page, something like the Gettysburg Address perhaps. Is a 500 page romantic novel worth more because it is bound and has a pretty cover? How about a web-page that is removed from the internet because the Chinese Government don't like it. Or an illustrated book of pedophilia? I'm not condoning the burning of books in the way you describe but we should be aware that not everything is black and white.  [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 02:47, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Eh?
"many specimens indicate that the Bible may be removed if the reader becomes engrossed in the text, the mere act of removal is probably not actionable." —

Could someone clarify what is trying to be said here? It doesn't make any sense to me. 15:33, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

"Unorganization"
Is there some other word we could use in the opening sentence that would work better than "unorganization?" For example, "collective" or just plain old "loosely-organized group?" Unorganization seems unprofessional and doesn't ring right. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The latter works. Humorless fascist sociopath 04:46, 28 November 2012 (UTC)