Beasts, Kings, and Armies Up to No Good
And Just What is the Sacreligious Joke I Took Out So As Not to Offend?

Sometimes People Reject a Valid Point Because of How Boorish its Author Is

I scored a significant coup after my post about busy proofreaders. Another person of good judgement and experience came forward to say she could do it. Already she has given very good insight on two chapters.

She also spotted and recommended deletion of something I had put in deliberately. It was too crass, she thought, or more specifically, some would find it sacreligious.

I intended it as a hilarious joke made to powerfully illustrate a main theme, and it IS hilarious - I ran it before on FB and people told me so. I write primarily for moderns and skeptic-minded people, and do not always take into account deeply religious people, on the basis that there aren't many in my neck of the woods. But there are elsewhere, and if I offend some unncecessarily, it - well - why go there?

I have made no effort to remove my personality from the book, and my personality is a little 'out there' - I know it. So here and there one must tone it down a little. It is enough on display elsewhere.

There are plenty of people on the internet who make very valid points, only to find them rejected because readers resent how ill-mannered the person is. I want to stay far away from that pitfall.

Defending Jehovah’s Witnesses with style from attacks... in Russia, with the book ‘I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses—Searching for the Why’ (free).... and in the West, with the book, 'In the Last of the Last Days: Faith in the Age of Dysfunction'


The comments to this entry are closed.