-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Da Vinci Code
- Thread starter Sabre170
- Start date
- Status
Don't read much further if you have to get up early the next morning... most people I've talked to couldn't put it down.
Cate
Pretty much invincible
I think the problem is that the chapters are so short. You think, "Oh, well, I'll just read one more, 'cause they're short," and the next thing you know it's waaaay later than you expected.
I liked it a lot, though. I don't really like the guy's writing style, but I thought the story was great. It kind of contradicted a lot of the stuff that I've been raised with as a Catholic, or at least cast aspersions, but it was really, really interesting stuff to consider anyway. And I love all of that conspiracy theory-secret society-ancient grudge thing. If you haven't read "Angels and Demons," you should read that, too.
I liked it a lot, though. I don't really like the guy's writing style, but I thought the story was great. It kind of contradicted a lot of the stuff that I've been raised with as a Catholic, or at least cast aspersions, but it was really, really interesting stuff to consider anyway. And I love all of that conspiracy theory-secret society-ancient grudge thing. If you haven't read "Angels and Demons," you should read that, too.
girlfriend is reading it. She loves it so far.
ET1.Colon
Registered User
Ya, Da Vinci code was great. I personally love anything that disparages the church. It's nothing personal or anything, it's just that the majority of people take what the bible says and misinterperet it. That, and the bible was written by man, regardless of what anyone tells me.
kevin
Registered User
"Kevin, have you read The Da Vinci code?"
--no...it's kind of like John McCain said when asked if he's seen "Farenheit 9/11"..."Yes, i've seen about 10 hours on CNN".
"remind me what this thread has to do with anything please?"
-ya i know, we're not supposed to start threads that are completely unrelated to aviation, but hey "they started it".
--no...it's kind of like John McCain said when asked if he's seen "Farenheit 9/11"..."Yes, i've seen about 10 hours on CNN".
"remind me what this thread has to do with anything please?"
-ya i know, we're not supposed to start threads that are completely unrelated to aviation, but hey "they started it".
Kevin~
I'm not trying to step on your toes. I was just curious. When I defend issues, I try to make sure that I am educated on both sides. It makes for a more educated defense, rather than just linking an article where someone else did their homework on it. I read the book and didn't take the book for fact... and most people really don't... but I was able to read it, appreciate it for what it was, continue to be a Christian and move on.
I dislike Michael Moore, and I've done my research. I've read his articles and watched all of his documentaries, including F9/11. While I knew (from my own research) that there were fallacies in F9/11, I still watched it, did my own research for Moore's points and felt like while I still disagreed with Michael Moore, at least I had done my own homework and had my own valid reasons.
This thread really doesn't have anything to do with aviation. Maybe we could create a public "Chit Chat" thread, like Kathy suggested for the PSC, for stuff like this....
I'm not trying to step on your toes. I was just curious. When I defend issues, I try to make sure that I am educated on both sides. It makes for a more educated defense, rather than just linking an article where someone else did their homework on it. I read the book and didn't take the book for fact... and most people really don't... but I was able to read it, appreciate it for what it was, continue to be a Christian and move on.
I dislike Michael Moore, and I've done my research. I've read his articles and watched all of his documentaries, including F9/11. While I knew (from my own research) that there were fallacies in F9/11, I still watched it, did my own research for Moore's points and felt like while I still disagreed with Michael Moore, at least I had done my own homework and had my own valid reasons.
This thread really doesn't have anything to do with aviation. Maybe we could create a public "Chit Chat" thread, like Kathy suggested for the PSC, for stuff like this....
kevin
Registered User
you're right, it is long and doesn't have anything to do with aviation.....OR DOES IT!?! (in conspiracy theory voice-over).
crysmc: look, while we'd all love to have time to thoroughly self-research every single issue we have an opinion on, it's not possible. there aren't enough hours in a day. for one thing, often times that research has been done...read the link. sure, it would be prudent for me to redo all that for myself....necessary? i dont think so. do you ingore anyone's opinion who hasn't done their own "extensive" research on any topic there is? i doubt it. but take it for what it's worth....the article is factual although biased (catholic source). it's not really making new conclusions, merely refuting false information used to rack up huge book sales (sounds strangely similar to F9/11). if you have your own research to refute those points, by all means post it...i doubt you'll find much considering the Code is based on a bunch of circumstancial garbage. by the way, i think my reasons for thinking that are valid (despite what you implied).
crysmc: look, while we'd all love to have time to thoroughly self-research every single issue we have an opinion on, it's not possible. there aren't enough hours in a day. for one thing, often times that research has been done...read the link. sure, it would be prudent for me to redo all that for myself....necessary? i dont think so. do you ingore anyone's opinion who hasn't done their own "extensive" research on any topic there is? i doubt it. but take it for what it's worth....the article is factual although biased (catholic source). it's not really making new conclusions, merely refuting false information used to rack up huge book sales (sounds strangely similar to F9/11). if you have your own research to refute those points, by all means post it...i doubt you'll find much considering the Code is based on a bunch of circumstancial garbage. by the way, i think my reasons for thinking that are valid (despite what you implied).
Well Kevin, I managed to step on your toes, huh? Well, I don't thoroughly self-research every topic I have an opinion on, just the ones that I choose to post about on here. Makes it nice when people know what they're talking about, don't you think? And while you're thinking that I have ample time... let me assure you that I am an entirely busy person, but I still take time out of my busy day to educate myself. Maybe that's why I don't get enough sleep. 
By the way, it's interesting that you say that, since you haven't read it, but don't misunderstand me. I'm not implying anything about you... I don't know you! So please don't think I think anything negative about you. I just think that it's unfair to call it garbage without having read it yourself, that's all.
kevin said:
By the way, it's interesting that you say that, since you haven't read it, but don't misunderstand me. I'm not implying anything about you... I don't know you! So please don't think I think anything negative about you. I just think that it's unfair to call it garbage without having read it yourself, that's all.
- Status