In the Sept. 2, 2001 Sunday Record, a local paper for northern NJ, Gilbert Smith wrote this to Roger Ebert:

Have you heard of the CAP project? Child Care Action Project: Movie Analysis for Parents (CAP) is the most insulting movie site on the Web. Their lust for demeaning a film solely on its content in annoying. An example is their review of "Jurassic Park," a film dear to my heart. They gave it an R rating in the Sex/Homosexuality department because there was "an inappropriate touch to a child from an adult." I wrote them back, saying that the film had no such scene. They told me they analyze every part of the film, including stuff parents/guardians wouldn’t even recognize. To do that is perverted and wrong.

Ebert responded:

Later in your message you recommend www.screenit.com. I agree that ScreenIt is the most useful and sensible site on the Web for parents seeking sane advice about movies. It has no religious or political affiliation, but simply provides detailed information about the content of a movie, so that parents can make up their own minds.

At www.capalert.com, few films seen innocent. Disney’s "Atlantis" contains "a tale of a homosexual kiss," "adults in underwear," and "female sensuality." "Planet of the Apes" includes "beatings by animals," "smoking what appears to be narcotics (by apes)," and an "offense to God—entire show built on evolution." It was with relief that I turned to the review of "The Princess Diaries," which is pretty much sin-free, although CapAlert noted "kissing on school property during school hours" and "trashing of lunch that Mom made."

I went to CapAlert, and noticed a response on their site to Ebert’s words at this link: http://www.traditionalvalues.org/prRogerEbert.html I felt compelled to respond, so I wrote this letter to the site (I recommend you read the response to put my reaction in context):

In your response to Roger Ebert's criticism of your site, you wrote: "Ebert apparently considers it "insane" for a Christian movie review site to consider profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages in its analysis of films."

You're a liar.

This is a typical ploy in debate by those who don't know how to argue honestly or maturely. Take what the other person said, and twist it around into something else entirely that doesn't bear any resemblance to what he/she actually said--often an outrageous caricaturized version of the original statement, and disagree with that. It's easier to disagree with an absurd statement that no one ever made, isn't? This is called the Straw Man argument.

You say Ebert thinks it's insane to review for profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages. You even say it was "APPARENT", which means "evident." Indeed, you must also hear Dobermans barking orders to you, since only a schizophrenic would read the article in question and assert that Ebert ever said such a thing.

He didn't.

First of all, he never said your site was "insane." In fact, he never even USED the word. All he said was that ANOTHER site, www.screenit.com, offered "sane adivce." That's it. He didn't even USE the word (or its antonym) to refer to use. He merely praised another site that he thought was superior by calling it "sensible" and "sane."

While his words about your site could be interpreted as critical, he was hardly vitriolic about it. The only point he made about the questionable nature of your reviewing process was that you alleged things in certain movies that seemed either to be a matter of your interpretation, or which seemed unusual for singling out as something parents would want to look out for, or even "anti-Christian".

He pointed out that in your review of Disney's "Atlantis", he found phrases like "a tale of a homosexual kiss," "adults in underwear,' and "female sensuality." I don't recall ever seeing a homosexual kiss in "Atlantis", nor do I know what's wrong with having adults walking around in their boxers, let alone what's "anti-Christian" about it. (I must've missed that lesson in relgion class in parochial school.) And "female sensuality"? What does that mean, that the female native in the story was drawn in a way to be attractive? Would you have preferred that she looked homely?

He continued by citing your "Planet of the Apes" review: "beatings by animals," "smoking what appears to be narcotics (by apes), " and an "offensive to God--entire show built on evolution." I don’t see what’s wrong with showing villains acting like villains. What difference is it if the villains look like animals? What type of villain would YOU prescribe for a film? It’s a fantasy, get over it. I also wonder if you were implying that the narcotics in question were illegal, or being used by children. If not, do you rant about every movie that shows adults people smoking or drinking? As for evolution, there is nothing in it that is offensive to God. It is a tired old perception on the part of Biblical literalists that there is some "battle" between religion and science. There isn’t. Pope John Paul II himself on October 27, 1996, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, declared his acceptance of evolution as a fact of nature and noted that there is no war between science and religion, writing, "Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life…while theology extracts…the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs."

Ebert also pondered your statements about "The Princess Diaries", wherein you noticed there was "kissing on school property during school hours" and "trashing of lunch that Mom made." I don’t see what’s anti-Christian about any of this, and if Ebert WERE to have singled this out as "insane" (though he didn’t), he’d be right

Luigi Novi

(P.S: I came up with this after sending the letter, but in regards to the material Ebert wrote for Russ Meyer, I cannot comment on it since I haven't seen it, but as far as him not knowing the difference between "good and evil", I wouldn't be surprised if there were at least some exaggeration or interpretation on the part of CapAlert, if Ebert's review of "I Spit on Your Grave" is any indication.

I personaly think that they guy who runs capalert has some sort of emotional problem with the female body. In his review of The River Wild he says that the mother was dressed in a way to expose more of her body infront of her son than most boys would ever see of their mother. They were rafting and she wore a tank to and shorts. Presumably he and his wife never took their kids to the beach or pool, or if they did his wife must not have worn a swim suit, or she wore one of those 1920s ones. Same deal with Pay it Forward a parent in their undies infront of their small kids how awful, as if that's not compleatly normal in most families.

I've been reading Roger Ebert's review guides, erm, religiously for the past ten years. So I can testify that he sticks closely to his self-proclaimed central tenet: 'A movie is not about what it is about, it is about how it is about it."

In other words, if the swearing, sex or violence is in context and necessary to getting this particular story across, fine, he has no problem with that. If on the other hand the same language, sex etc. seems even a little gratuitous, he will be the first to point it out, and take the filmmakers to task. (Interestingly enough, Peter Howell - the senior Toronto Star critic - once accused Ebert of being too puritanical!)

Anyway, this method sounds eminently fair to me - a moderately conservative Christian.

For examples of his personal tolerance level - in addition to I Spit On Your Grave - check out his reviews of Blue Velvet (the one that inspired Howell's comments,) Death Race 2000, any cheap slasher film and most of the Adam Sandler movies.
On the opposite fence, he was one of the few critics to really like The Majestic, and seems to have a soft spot for nostalgic films in general.
And when it comes to children's films, he's even more sensitive to ugly or out-of-place nuances (as per North, about which he wrote "This [storyline] is deeply flawed. Children do not lightly separate from their parents...")

As for capalert...that dude should be required viewing for anyone who's still unconvinced of the dangers of unbridled political correctness.

In other words, if the swearing, sex or violence is in context and necessary to getting this particular story across, fine, he has no problem with that. If on the other hand the same language, sex etc. seems even a little gratuitous, he will be the first to point it out, and take the filmmakers to task. (Interestingly enough, Peter Howell - the senior Toronto Star critic - once accused Ebert of being too puritanical!)

For examples of his personal tolerance level - in addition to I Spit On Your Grave - check out his reviews of Blue Velvet (the one that inspired Howell's comments,) Death Race 2000, any cheap slasher film and most of the Adam Sandler movies.

On the other hand he has been known to have no problem with gratuitous sex/violence if the movie admits that it's exploitive up front (i.e. From Dusk Till Dawn, or that Russ Meyer tit flick that Ebert himself wrote). In his review of Road Trip he said "Nude scenes should be inspired by the libido, not the box office. That's why I object to the phrase "gratuitous nudity." In a movie like this, the only nudity worth having is gratuitous. If it's there for reasons that are clankingly commercial, you feel sorry for the actresses, which is not the point."

(check what he said about Swordfish:
This does not prevent a scene in which she bares her breasts to tempt the untemptable Stanley. This scene came as a huge relief because I thought the movies, in their rush to the PG-13 rating, had forgotten about breasts. In the age of computerized sci-fi special effects, beautiful skin finishes a distant second at the box office. Once teenage boys wanted to see Emmanuelle undulating; now they want to see Keanu Reeves levitating.


Don't forget that he did like Last House on the Left which is quite similar to I Spit on your Grave. I enjoy reading his reviews, although I frequently don't agree with weather or not he liked a flick. I think that when he is analytical and taking apart the components of a movie he's interesting. Weather or not he liked the flick I couldn't care less (you and your best friend can't always agree on if something is good why do I care if some guy who I've never met and who is as old as my dad liked it or not.) I think his best reviews are those where he likes unredeemable trashy but entertaining movies (Wild Things, The Fast and the Furious, Tomb Raider)

As for capalert...that dude should be required viewing for anyone who's still unconvinced of the dangers of unbridled political correctness.

Unbridled political correctness? While I am far from PC myself, the guy who runs cap alert is so much less PC than I am. He's so far right that he passes Jesse Helms. He thinks sex, homosexuality, and independent thinking are bad. He is (if anything) the anti-PC. Whatever you want to say about political correctness it is a liberal phenomena, not a conservative one.

Today I received these two letters from T. Carder and Jon Gardner, in response to my letter:

On 1/20/02 11:12 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:

In your response to Roger Ebert's criticism of your site, you wrote: "Ebert apparently considers it "insane" for a Christian movie review site to consider profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages in its analysis of films."

You're a liar.

I didn't write it. You are in trouble for slander.

This is a typical ploy in debate by those who don't know how to argue honestly or maturely.

Sounds as though you are quite adept in it.

Take what the other person said, and twist it around into something else entirely that doesn't bear any resemblance to what he/she actually said--often an outrageous caricaturized version of the original statement, and disagree with that. It's easier to disagree with an absurd statement that no one ever made, isn't?

I don't know. The press release did not agree or disagree with somethingthat was not said.

This is called the Straw Man argument.

Now I am convinced you are indeed expert at it. And thank you for revealing the name of such a tactic. Many try to use it against us ... including you apparently.

You say Ebert thinks it's insane to review for profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages.

No, I don't say. I agree with what was said, but I didn't say it. This whole tirade of yours is lame.

You even say it was "APPARENT", which means "evident."

No, I don't.

Indeed, you must also hear Dobermans barking orders to you,
since only a schizophrenic would read the article in question and assert
that Ebert ever said such a thing.

So. You are a degreed psychiatrist? No? An educated psychologist? No. A
trained behavioral analyst? No? A clerk in a shrink's office? No? Its janitor? No? Hmmmm!

He didn't.

What was said was "He noted that "At www.capalert.com, few films seem innocent" and recommended another movie review site that offers "sane advice" about movies. Ebert apparently considers it "insane" for a Christian movie review site to consider profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages in its analysis of films." It is logical that "insane" would be the intent of his panning us in labeling his contrasting site as "sane."

First of all, he never said your site was "insane."

The article did not say he did. In fact, he never even USED the word.

That comment seems to be a typical "...ploy in debate by those who don't know how to argue honestly or maturely."..."to "Take what the other person said, and twist it around into something else entirely..."

All he said was that ANOTHER site, www.screenit.com, offered "sane adivce." That's it. He didn't even USE the word (or its antonym) to refer to use. He merely praised another site that he thought was superior by calling it "sensible" and "sane.

If the shoe fits.......

While his words about your site could be interpreted as critical, he was hardly vitriolic about it. The only point he made about the questionable nature of your reviewing process was that you alleged things in certain movies that seemed either to a matter of your interpretation, or which seemed unusual for singling out as something parents would want to look out for, or even "anti-Christian".

Your entire diatribe seems to be focused on our "reviews." We do not prepare movie reviews. They are analyses for Christian parents and grandparents telling them the truth about the content of movie so THEY can make an informed decision whether a movie is or is not fit for their kids or themselves.

He pointed out that in your review of Disney's "Atlantis", he found phrases like "a tale of a homosexual kiss," "adults in underwear,' and "female sensuality." I don't recall ever seeing a homosexual kiss in "Atlantis",

That is because there wasn't one. Your twisting of what was said in the report is condemning your argument. nor do I know what's wrong with having adults walking around in their boxers,

You are assuming people wear only boxers. And you must also be assuming the fly in boxers never warp open when sitting and you must be assuming no one wearing only boxers ever sits with their knees spread apart in the air and you must be assuming .......

let alone what's "anti-Christian" about it.

Walk into the nearest police station wearing only your boxers and you'll find out. I would suggest trying it in the nearest elementary school to find out but "what's wrong with having adults walking around in their" underwear, estimating from your character and level of integrity herein, you just might do it.

(I must've missed that lesson in relgion class in parochial school.)

You must have missed a l-o-t in "parochial school."

And "female sensuality"? What does that mean, that the female native in the story was drawn in a way to be attractive? Would you have preferred that she looked homely?

It doesn't matter what *I* would prefer.

He continued by citing your "Planet of the Apes" review: "beatings by animals," "smoking what appears to be narcotics (by apes), " and an "offensive to God--entire show built on evolution." I don’t see what’s wrong with showing villains acting like villains.

Then there is nothing wrong with placing vile things before your eyes, Mr. Parochial? This is the CHILDCare Action Project.

What difference is it if the villains look like animals? What type of villain would YOU prescribe for a film? It’s a fantasy, get over it.

An influence does not have to be real to influence. Get over it.

I also wonder if you were implying that the narcotics in question were illegal, or being used by children.

Who cares? It was the use of narcotics.

If not, do you rant about every movie that shows adults people smoking or drinking?

I don't rant, but I reveal them.

As for evolution, there is nothing in it that is offensive to God.

Yes, there is. Whether you believe it or not. In any case, Mr. Gardner is addressing that with you.

It is a tired old perception on the part of Biblical literalists that there is some "battle" between religion and science. There isn’t. Pope John Paul II himself on October 27, 1996, in an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in Rome, declared his acceptance of evolution as a fact of nature and noted that there is no war between science and religion, writing, "Consideration of the method used in diverse orders of knowledge allows for the concordance of two points of view which seem irreconcilable.

The Pope is not God nor is the Pope the Final Word.

The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life…while theology extracts…the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs."

And I aced a Physics final with essentially the same reasoning, the the *theory* of evolution is indeed subordinate to and affirming of Creation.

Ebert also pondered your statements about "The Princess Diaries", wherein you noticed there was "kissing on school property during school hours" and "trashing of lunch that Mom made." I don’t see what’s anti-Christian about any of this,

They are issues of rebellion. And who cares if they are "antiChristian?" They are sinful *because* they are rebellious.

and if Ebert WERE to have singled this out as "insane" (though he didn’t), he’d be right

By saying that you are guilty of that of which you accuse us.

Luigi Novi

What this sounds like is Denson being deceitful by using another email address and name to thwart our blocking of him.

I expect an apology for calling me a liar WITHOUT attempts at qualification OR retaliatory comments within 30 calendar days at which time action will be considered unless you comply.

T. Carder

Jon Gardner’s letter:

On Monday, January 21, 2002, at 04:12 AM, Luigi Novi wrote:

"The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life...while theology extracts...the final meaning according to the Creator's designs."

I'll leave the other stuff to Mr. Carder, but I must respond to your quote of His Excellency, who it seems does not believe that the Bible is as accurate in the area of "science" as it is in the areas of history, geography, archaeology, theology, and everything else. To the contrary,
the Bible provides the foundation for science.

The Pope mentions observation and measurement...and interesting thing, since the process of evolution--that of molecules-to-man, I mean, not variations within a species, which are readily observable--has never been, and will never be, observable or measurable. You cannot provide me a single measurable, observable example of a random genetic mutation that is both beneficial to the survival of the organism *and* results in a net increase in genetic information. These are the most basic requirements in order for evolution to have any chance at occurring, and they simply do not happen.

This is, of course, completely ignoring the question of the origin of life itself. The very idea that organic matter could spring spontaneously from inorganic matter (abiogenesis) is routinely dismissed in science texts--that's how they used to believe flies formed in
manure--yet the theory of evolution rests upon this very idea.

Back to the pillars of measurement and observation, though, we must come to blows with the process of radiometric dating (which is the source of the idea that the earth is 4 to 10 billion years old). Radiometric dating is, in fact, testable using the scientific method of measurement and observation; however, most people have never seen the results of
such tests because they demonstrate the complete inaccuracy of radiometric dating...and this would call into serious question the validity old ages which are required for evolution. A group of scientists gathered igneous rock samples from volcanic eruptions of known ages, and submitted these for dating at the same laboratories used by geologists etc. The labs dated these samples, which ranged in actual age from 20-300 years old, at ages from 250,000-2.5 million years old.

The bottom line, Luigi, is that evolution does not rely upon the scientific method of measurement and observation. It relies upon pure theory, based upon conjecture. To believe that evolution is "a fact of nature," you must have tremendous blind faith. It is your religion, and you defend it with the same fervor with which we defend ours. These examples merely scratch the surface of the vast landscape of problems with the theory of evolution. If you are open-minded enough to admit that perhaps your faith in evolution has been misplaced, I encourage you to study the matter further. I can highly recommend all of the resources
available at <http://www.answersingenesis.org/. There are many other sources of good information on this topic, but that's a good start.

I stated before that the Bible provides the foundation for science. A great many people are expending their resources trying to explain how life evolved in the past rather than trying to solve the problems of life today...all because they refuse to accept the Biblical explanation
of origins. They are attempting to create their own foundation for science, a foundation in which the creation itself is the creator. This foundation is unsound, and results in evolutionary philosophies such as eugenics, white supremacy, and what I will call Macchiavellianism in general. Without a Creator, one cannot offer any concrete argument that these things are "wrong" in a universal sense. They are simply part of the evolutionary process. I don't like that foundation, and neither should you, because it is completely false.

Seek the Truth.

Jon

My responses to both letters. First, T. Carder’s:

CAP: I didn't write it. You are in trouble for slander.
I’m petrified.

It’s on your site. Whoever wrote it is a liar.

Luigi Novi: This is a typical ploy in debate by those who don't know how to argue honestly or maturely.

CAP: Sounds as though you are quite adept in it.
Luigi Novi: Any time you want to show me where I used a straw man argument, hey, have a party.

Luigi Novi: Take what the other person said, and twist it around into something else entirely that doesn't bear any resemblance to what he/she actually said--often an outrageous caricaturized version of the original statement, and disagree with that. It's easier to disagree with an absurd statement that no one ever made, isn't?

CAP: I don't know. The press release did not agree or disagree with something that was not said.
Luigi Novi: I don’t know what "press release" you’re referring to. You put words into Roger Ebert’s mouth. He complimented another website by saying it offers "sane" and "sensible" advice. You turned this around by telling others that he "apparently" thinks reviewing movies for sex, nudity, profanity or other things inappropriate for children was "insane," something he never said. The only thing he did take issue with (and he was right to do so) was your ridiculous focusing on things like "throwing out a sandwich that mom made" or Meryl Streep wearing appropriate river rafting attire in "The River Wild," which you claimed constituted showing too much of her body in front of her son, which is utterly idiotic.

Luigi Novi: This is called the Straw Man argument.

CAP: Now I am convinced you are indeed expert at it. And thank you for revealing
the name of such a tactic. Many try to use it against us ... including you apparently.
Luigi Novi: Again, I challenge you to provide one example of my use of the Straw Man. Everything I responded to on your part I quoted from your website. Your response to my assertion about your use of the Straw Man seems to be along the lines of simply throwing the accusation back at me reflexively, the way children do with insults.

Luigi Novi: You say Ebert thinks it's insane to review for profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages.

CAP: No, I don't say. I agree with what was said, but I didn't say it. This whole tirade of yours is lame.
Luigi Novi: Pass the crutches. I didn’t say "YOU" did. I am speaking to whoever did write that statement.

Luigi Novi: Indeed, you must also hear Dobermans barking orders to you, since only a schizophrenic would read the article in question and assert that Ebert ever said such a thing.

CAP: So. You are a degreed psychiatrist? No? An educated psychologist? No. A
trained behavioral analyst? No? A clerk in a shrink's office? No? Its janitor? No? Hmmmm!
Luigi Novi: I’m someone who notices when people make believe someone said one thing when they said another. Ebert never called your site insane, period.

CAP: What was said was "He noted that "At www.capalert.com, few films seem innocent" and recommended another movie review site that offers "sane advice" about movies. Ebert apparently considers it "insane" for a Christian movie review site to consider profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages in its analysis of films." It is logical that "insane" would be the intent of his panning us in labeling his contrasting site as "sane."
Luigi Novi: His "INTENT"? Oh, so now you’re a psychic? Perhaps you could set up shop right next to my psychology practice.

Again, he was PRASING ANOTHER site, not referring to yours.

Luigi Novi: First of all, he never said your site was "insane."

CAP: The article did not say he did.
Luigi Novi: The statement on your site did.

Luigi Novi: In fact, he never even USED the word.

CAP: That comment seems to be a typical "...ploy in debate by those who don't know how to argue honestly or maturely."..."to "Take what the other person said, and twist it around into something else entirely..."
Luigi Novi: What "something else"? I quote YOUR site. Your site used that word, implying what Ebert "thinks." He never used the word.

CAP: Your entire diatribe seems to be focused on our "reviews."
Luigi Novi: Uh, no, my statement was to point out that you put words in Ebert’s mouth (and now seem to be able to divine his "intent"—do you read tea leaves too?) that he never used.

CAP: We do not prepare movie reviews. They are analyses for Christian parents and grandparents telling them the truth about the content of movie…
Luigi Novi: They are lies. You are liars. Saying that there is a "tale of a homosexual kiss" in Disney’s "Atlantis" is a lie. You can call it the "truth" if you want. You can call it a windmill a giant, or say a naked emperor walking down the street has clothes on. Doesn’t make it so.

Luigi Novi: nor do I know what's wrong with having adults walking around in their boxers,

CAP: You are assuming people wear only boxers. And you must also be assuming the
fly in boxers never warp open when sitting and you must be assuming no one wearing only boxers ever sits with their knees spread apart in the air and you must be assuming .......
Luigi Novi: LOL! What difference does it make if they "warp open"? Did they warp open IN THE MOVIE? I must say, I don’t often notice that men’s underwear warps open, or their open legs. Is there some particular reason YOU fixate on it?

Luigi Novi: let alone what's "anti-Christian" about it.

CAP: Walk into the nearest police station wearing only your boxers and you'll find out. I would suggest trying it in the nearest elementary school to find out but "what's wrong with having adults walking around in their" underwear,
Luigi Novi: They weren’t IN a police station, period. For Milo and the other characters to walk around in their cabins on the Ulysses is not an elementary school or police station. Why bring those two places up, when that’s not what we’re talking about here? By the way, just what do you think would happen if someone DID walk into a police station in boxers? I doubt that’s illegal, and even if it were, you didn’t single it out under the "Wanton Crime" list. You listed it under your "Sex/Homosexuality" list.

CAP: So estimating from your character and level of integrity herein, you just might do it.
Luigi Novi: LOL! I love this! So now you can estimate my character and level of integrity? Funny how you asked me earlier if I was a shrink. Are YOU a psychic?

Luigi Novi: He continued by citing your "Planet of the Apes" review: "beatings by animals," "smoking what appears to be narcotics (by apes), " and an "offensive to God--entire show built on evolution." I don’t see what’s wrong with showing villains acting like villains.

CAP: Then there is nothing wrong with placing vile things before your eyes, Mr. Parochial? This is the CHILDCare Action Project.
Luigi Novi: It is one thing to single out the violence in the movie. It is entirely another to place emphasis on the fact that it is "animals" who are doing this, as if that makes a difference.

Luigi Novi: As for evolution, there is nothing in it that is offensive to God.

CAP: Yes, there is. Whether you believe it or not. In any case, Mr. Gardner is addressing that with you.
Luigi Novi: I’m a Christian, and I say there isn’t. People who say otherwise are merely ignorant of what science is, and under the mistaken beliefs that Biblical texts are only valid if they are taken to be literal.

CAP: The Pope is not God nor is the Pope the Final Word.
Luigi Novi: Perhaps not (I don’t know what denomination you belong to), but I wouldn’t dismiss him outright. Moreover, St. Augustine himself stated that the "six days" of creation mentioned in the Bible should not be taken literally.

Luigi Novi (Quoting the Pope): The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life…while theology extracts…the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs."

And I aced a Physics final with essentially the same reasoning, the *theory* of evolution is indeed subordinate to and affirming of Creation.
Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that theories with substantial enough documented proof and acceptance can be called "facts," I’m not going to get into an argument over evolution, but I would recommend reading Chapters 9-11 of Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things (1999; Freeman and Company).

Luigi Novi: Ebert also pondered your statements about "The Princess Diaries", wherein you noticed there was "kissing on school property during school hours" and "trashing of lunch that Mom made." I don’t see what’s anti-Christian about any of this,

CAP: They are issues of rebellion. And who cares if they are "antiChristian?" They are sinful *because* they are rebellious.
Luigi Novi: Nonsense. Christ was a rebel. Some of the greatest heroes and thinkers in history were rebels. This COUNTRY was founded on rebellion. Rebellion, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. It must be weighed against the CONTEXT of the situation. Because you’re too blind to understand this point, you lump in perfectly LEGITIMATE acts of rebellion, like Muhammad Ali’s refusal on principle to go to war, along with NON LEGITIMATE rebellion, as if viewers are too stupid to discern the difference. Yes, you go on and on about not "reviewing" movies, but if this were true, you wouldn’t use such the subjective numbering system that you do, which is clearly a value judgement. If you truly wanted parents to make their own decision, you’d tell them what was in it without any of YOUR OWN conclusions or value judgements. You don’t abstain from doing so, and have to nerve to imply that Ali was wrong to refuse to go to war. He wasn’t, and while I wouldn’t use movies to teach history to my kids, I WILL teach them about what he did with PRIDE.

CAP: What this sounds like is Denson being deceitful by using another email address and name to thwart our blocking of him.
Luigi Novi: I don’t know of anyone by that name.

CAP: I expect an apology for calling me a liar WITHOUT attempts at qualification OR retaliatory comments within 30 calendar days at which time action will be considered unless you comply.
Luigi Novi: Don’t hold your breath. Whoever wrote that statement is a liar, period.

My response to Jon Gardner’s letter:

Jon Gardner: I'll leave the other stuff to Mr. Carder, but I must respond to your quote of His Excellency, who it seems does not believe that the Bible is as accurate in the area of "science" as it is in the areas of history, geography, archaeology, theology, and everything else.
Luigi Novi: The Bible ISN’T accurate AT ALL in science, and is not a document OF science. Nor is it a work of geography or archaeology (how could it be, since modern archaeology didn’t exist back then?) It is essentially a theological work. Its truths are SPIRITUAL, or METAPHORICAL in nature, not LITERAL or FACTUAL.

Jon Gardner: To the contrary, the Bible provides the foundation for science.
Luigi Novi: I’m sorry, but that’s not true. Nothing in the modern practice of science is derived from the Bible. The foundation of science is the SCIENTIFC METHOD, and the works of people like Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, etc.

Jon Gardner: The Pope mentions observation and measurement...and interesting thing, since the process of evolution--that of molecules-to-man, I mean, not variations within a species, which are readily observable--has never been, and will never be, observable or measurable. You cannot provide me a single measurable, observable example of a random genetic mutation that is both beneficial to the survival of the organism *and* results in a net increase in genetic information. These are the most basic requirements in order for evolution to have any chance at occurring, and they simply do not happen.
Luigi Novi: In science, there are the Historical Sciences and the Experimental Sciences. The Historical Sciences INDEED deal with past phenomena, as in cosmology, geology, paleontology, paleoanthropology, and archaeology. They use different methodologies but are equally able to track causality. Evolutionary biology is a valid and legitimate historical science. The notion that we must witness or observe things in a lab or petri dish in order to draw conclusions is false. Natural phenomena can be inferred by the corroboration of other independent lines of evidence, such as the ability to make predictions in nature. Gravity, for example, has never been "observed" in the sense that it’s invisible. But it can be used to accurately predict the motion of other planets and stars. I doubt the Pope meant or implied that people can observe molecules transforming 3 billion years ago. He was talking about the methodologies of science IN GENERAL, and that includes the inferences that can be made in the historical sciences.

As for macroevolution, most mutations are small genetic or chromosomal aberrations that have small effects—slightly keener hearing, a new shade of fur, larger eyes, etc. Some of these may provide benefits to the lifeform when the lifeform’s environment changes, but not all. Ernst Mayr’s 1970 theory of "allopatric speciation" demonstrates that new species CAN be produced by both natural selection and other forces in nature.

Jon Gardner: This is, of course, completely ignoring the question of the origin of life itself. The very idea that organic matter could spring spontaneously from inorganic matter (abiogenesis) is routinely dismissed in science texts--that's how they used to believe flies formed in manure--yet the theory of evolution rests upon this very idea.
Luigi Novi: Biochemists do have a very rational and scientific explanation for the evolution from inorganic to organic compounds, such as amino acids and the construction of protein chains, the first crude cells, the creation of photosynthesis, the invention of sexual reproduction, and so on.

Jon Gardner: we must come to blows with the process of radiometric dating (which is the source of the idea that the earth is 4 to 10 billion years old). Radiometric dating is, in fact, testable using the scientific method of measurement and observation; however, most people have never seen the results of such tests because they demonstrate the complete inaccuracy of radiometric dating...and this would call into serious question the validity old ages which are required for evolution. A group of scientists gathered igneous rock samples from volcanic eruptions of known ages, and submitted these for dating at the same laboratories used by geologists etc. The labs dated these samples, which ranged in actual age from 20-300 years old, at ages from 250,000-2.5 million years old.
Luigi Novi: That sounds quite interesting. I’d love to know more about it. Was it a reputable lab? Were steps taken by the submitters to throw off the results? Was the equipment properly calibrated and well-maintained? Were there any variables that could’ve thrown off the dating? (I know, for example, that microbiologist Dr. Garza Valdez discovered a coating on ancient cloth fibers caused by bacteria that can significantly distort carbon dating.) Were these results an isolated incident, or representative of dating techniques and results used WIDELY throughout the field? Were these results submitted for peer review? Were explanations for them given from each side? You’ll notice I provided the date and situation for the Pope’s words. It’d be nice if you did the same with this event, so that I could research it on my own. What scientists? Who? Where? When? What rocks? What lab?

Jon Gardner: The bottom line, Luigi, is that evolution does not rely upon the scientific method of measurement and observation. It relies upon pure theory, based upon conjecture.
Luigi Novi: Hate to break this to you, Jon. But theory and conjecture is part OF the scientific method. It isn’t the beginning and end of it, but it’s part of it.

Jon Gardner: To believe that evolution is "a fact of nature," you must have tremendous blind faith.
Luigi Novi: An interesting accusation, given that "blind faith" is the entire foundation for religion, and your entire position on evolution.

In fact, acknowledging evolution has nothing to do with faith, any more than recognizing the accuracy of DNA testing or gas chromotography.

Jon Gardner: It is your religion…
Luigi Novi: Not really. I was raised Catholic.

Jon Gardner: …and you defend it with the same fervor with which we defend ours.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure about that. Scientific knowledge is, and must always be open to reevaluation and change. Should sufficient proof prove a previously accepted idea false, that idea must sometimes be abandoned. Honest, objective scientists working with the scientific method in good faith must sometimes do so. I am more than willing to reevaluate previously held ideas about science, history, or my own personal beliefs, and I have done so in the past. I DOUBT, on the other hand, that people such as yourself would ever do the same with science OR religion. So I think there’s a bit of a difference. Biblical literalists and creationists NEVER consider the possibility that they’re wrong. Good scientists have to. This is because scientific explanations must be subject to external validation. Religious dogma is not. There is a difference between someone who believes a scientific fact or theory is wrong based on a SINCERELY held conclusion that something is wrong with the science involved, with no bias on their part affecting that conclusion, and one who asserts this only because their religious beliefs and preconceptions DISALLOW them from doing so, regardless of whatever proof is presented, and merely search for explanations to discredit the fact or theory in a POST HOC manner. Ultimately, you must ask yourself: If radiometric dating, or another method, WERE proven solid enough, even for YOUR standards, and corroborated the same 4.5 billion year date for the Earth, would you then accept it? Or would you simply dismiss it, and assert that there "must be something wrong with the method", simply because it came a conclusion incompatible with your religious beliefs, and perhaps even search for ANOTHER flaw with evolution?

Jon Gardner: These examples merely scratch the surface of the vast landscape of problems with the theory of evolution. If you are open-minded enough to admit that perhaps your faith in evolution has been misplaced, I encourage you to study the matter further. I can highly recommend all of the resources available at <http://www.answersingenesis.org/. There are many other sources of good information on this topic, but that's a good start.
Luigi Novi: Thank you, Jon. I visited that site, and it appears to be a very thoughtful site about the Bible. It is not, however, about science.

Jon Gardner: I stated before that the Bible provides the foundation for science. A great many people are expending their resources trying to explain how life evolved in the past rather than trying to solve the problems of life today...all because they refuse to accept the Biblical explanation of origins.
Luigi Novi: C’mon, Jon, that’s not the reason. People study the origin of life because they study EVERYTHING that is the wealth of human knowledge. Evolution is just one more area of study in science. Religious scholars study about that which occurred in Biblical times. Do you believe they are wasting their time too?

The Bible is not meant to be taken literally, and if we confuse Biblical origins with literal ones, then we have to abandon the scientific method in ALL matters, not just evolution, and therefore, ALL science goes out the window. The age of the earth is corroborated by cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, geology, palentology, paleoanthropology, and early human history. If we decide the Earth is only 10,000 years old, then ALL of that must be thrown out. You can’t just pick and choose.

Jon Gardner: They are attempting to create their own foundation for science, a foundation in which the creation itself is the creator.
Luigi Novi: The word "science" does not mean "any lens through which we view the world." It has a specific meaning that Biblical texts do not fall under. Hijacking the word "science" and attaching it to religion won’t work. This and other statements by you, such as your statement that the Bible is the "foundation of science" are often used by creationists who simply DON’T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE.

Jon Gardner: This foundation is unsound, and results in evolutionary philosophies such as eugenics, white supremacy, and what I will call Macchiavellianism in general.
Luigi Novi: The use or misuse of a theory does not negate the validity of the theory itself. Marx once claimed he wasn’t a Marxist. Darwin and Wallace would be spinning in their graves if they found out how their theory was used to justify all manner of ideologies, from Marxism to capitalism to Facism. The fact that Hitler implemented a eugenics program does not negate the theory of genetics. Scientific theories are neutral; the use of them is not.

Jon Gardner: Without a Creator, one cannot offer any concrete argument that these things are "wrong" in a universal sense.
Luigi Novi: I disagree. There are agnostics and athiests and other non-Christians in our society and in the world who do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God, but who yet live a moral, civil life among others.

Thank you for your letter. It was far more friendly than T. Carder’s letter, and I enjoyed reading it. Take care, Jon.

Luigi Novi

This foundation is unsound, and results in evolutionary philosophies such as eugenics, white supremacy, and what I will call Macchiavellianism in general.

I'm not sure how any of this applies to Machiavelli - maybe Jon Gardner should actually READ The Prince or something else by him before he uses a word, ignorant of its meaning, that has a negative connotation.

Whatever you want to say about political correctness it is a liberal phenomena, not a conservative one.

You're right, of course, Brian. That was an off-the-cuff remark that shoulda stayed on the cuff.

On the other hand he [Roger Ebert] has been known to have no problem with gratuitous sex/violence if the movie admits that it's exploitive up front.

True. But then again, he's also human. One can have high moral standards and still appreciate Halle Berry's, erm, performance - especially if one is an adult male who has spent well-nigh thirty years viewing nude scenes of varying quality. Quite frankly I'm gonna be seriously suspicious of any male film critic that does have a big problem with that Swordfish scene.

Anyway, even allowing for the inevitable exceptions, I think my basic point's still intact.

Don't forget that he did like Last House on the Left which is quite similar to I Spit on your Grave.

He did? Could you give me a link or reference for that review, Brian? Not that I doubt you...but this I gotta see.

You are assuming people wear only boxers. And you must also be assuming the fly in boxers never warp open when sitting and you must be assuming no one wearing only boxers ever sits with their knees spread apart in the air and you must be assuming .......

Walk into the nearest police station wearing only your boxers and you'll find out. I would suggest trying it in the nearest elementary school to find out but "what's wrong with having adults walking around in their" underwear, estimating from your character and level of integrity herein, you just might do it.

I love that arguement that he always makes about states of dress. The problem with that arguement is what if me and a woman walked into a police station/school/store/resturat wearing swim suits (i.e. me wearing no shirt and her in a bikini). We'd be dressed inappropratly for the place, but if we walked into the kiddy section of White Water (a water park) no one would think that we were dressed inappropratly.

Don't forget that he did like Last House on the Left which is quite similar to I Spit on your Grave.

He did? Could you give me a link or reference for that review, Brian? Not that I doubt you...but this I gotta see.

I wish to hell I could (Ebert's online reviews only go back to the mid-1980s) I've seen other reviews refer to Ebert's review of Last House. One said that Ebert called it one of his "Guilty Pleasures". As far as I know Ebert has stopped publishing his book of old reviews. If anyone knows where I can find ebert's review of Last House

CAP: Kerriem: Quite frankly I'm gonna be seriously suspicious of any male film critic that does have a big problem with that Swordfish scene.
Luigi Novi: I thought it was gratuitous. It had nothing to do with Hugh Jackman waking up and asking to borrow her car. It might’ve made sense in the later scene where she’s stripping, and Jackman sees the wire she has taped to her body, which is where he finds out she’s an undercover agent, but in that prior scene, there was no reason for it. Sure, she’s hot, but in the context of story, there was no reason for it.

CAP: I didn't write it. You are in trouble for slander.
Luigi Novi: I’m petrified.
CAP: Petrified may not be necessary. But if you lose your account because of
slander, it will have an effect.
Luigi Novi: Lose my account? Oh, no, not that! Please! Anything but THAT! Even if that were to happen—and I seriously doubt MSN/hotmail is that spineless or stupid —there are any number of other email service providers, from whom a monkey could get a free account.

Come to think of it, your letter proves it.

Luigi Novi: It’s on your site. Whoever wrote it is a liar.
CAP: You addressed your accusation to me.
Luigi Novi: I "addressed" the accusation to whomever wrote the false statement in question. I never used your name, and indeed, I didn’t even know what your name WAS until you responded to me. While I could have very well phrased it "LOUIS SHELDON is a liar," there is no distinction made on your site between the webmaster and the authors of individual authors of articles. You put it on your site, which means you stand by it. You didn’t provide a separate email address for Sheldon, and the email that is provided does not mention you by name, Mr. Carder. Indeed, your name doesn’t even appear in the author line in my email box, and it only appears once in your entire letter, at the bottom. Everywhere else, you refer to yourself as "CAP," indicating that when speak to you and get a response from you, I am dealing with the entire organization of your site.

No email provider will look at a criticism by me to one author on your site as being directed to its webmaster, and if you had more than two or three neurons to rub together, you’d see it that way too. My statement was not directed to you, T., but if you want to get in the line of fire and make believe it was, hey, it’s a free world. Make believe I was talking to you when I wasn’t, if it floats your boat.

I would’ve recommended that you simply passed my letter along to Mr. Sheldon, or better yet, simply disregard it altogether. (You still CAN, in fact.) But if you’re so sensitive that you can’t deal with mail like this like an adult, I suggest you go crawl back under your bed where it’s safe. Life is tough, T. Wear a cup.

Luigi Novi: Any time you want to show me where I used a straw man argument, hey, have a party.
CAP: You just did.
Luigi Novi: What, have a party, or use a Straw Man argument?

Luigi Novi: I don’t know what "press release" you’re referring to.
CAP: I don't believe you. "Everything I responded to on your part I quoted from your website." If you really got your information from our website you'd know that it came from the TVC Press Release.
Luigi Novi: At one point you referred to an "article." Now you refer to a "press release." Sorry, but I wasn’t aware they were one and the same. Whether you believe that makes no difference to me. The "press release" or "article" (assuming you are referring to that demented diatribe from Shledon) claimed that Ebert said or implied things that he didn’t.

CAP: And it is "I don't know to what press release you are referring."
Luigi Novi: Thank you. And it’s "anti-Christian," not "antiChristian," "A clerk in a shrink’s office?" is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence. Ditto for "Its janitor?" In the phrase "rescue you form guilt," it should be "FROM guilt," not "FORM guilt," and I have a feeling you meant to refer to my "MANUFACTURED opinions," rather than my "MANUFACTURES opinions." It’s "situational," not "sitatuonal," and "conditional," not "conditioanl." If you want to nit-pick grammar and spelling instead of staying on topic, I can roll up my sleeves with the best of them. En garde, moi CAPitane.

Luigi Novi: He complimented another website by saying it offers "sane" and "sensible" advice.
CAP: ...and by literary contrasting called ours "insane."
Luigi Novi: Your interpretation. It is just as possible that he was simply praising the other one without making a specific reference to the aforementioned one.

Luigi Novi: You turned this around by telling others that he "apparently" thinks reviewing movies for sex, nudity, profanity or other things inappropriate for children was "insane," something he never said.
CAP: I explained that to the satisfaction of a rational and reasonable adult. That you continue to argue it does not defeat it.
Luigi Novi: The flaws in your logic are self-evident to any reasonable, fair, objective person.

Luigi Novi: The only thing he did take issue with (and he was right to do so) was your ridiculous focusing on things like "throwing out a sandwich that mom made" or Meryl Streep wearing appropriate river rafting attire in "The River Wild," which you claimed constituted showing too much of her body in front of her son, which is utterly idiotic.
CAP: To those who care not about proper and wholesome.
Luigi Novi: So the proper attire for river rafting or the beach or when walking down the street on a hot day is a tuxedo, and anyone who doesn’t isn’t "wholesome"? Whatever.

CAP: When you use childish tactics....... Such as refusing to admit you are wrong and apologize.
Luigi Novi: You think wearing appropriate attire for river rafting when doing so with one’s young son is improper, and now you talk of childishness? So said the pot to the kettle.

Luigi Novi: You say Ebert thinks it's insane to review for profanity, explicit sex, and
anti-Biblical messages.
CAP: The press releases says "apparently." But I didn't say it. I agree with it but I didn't say it. You continue to be wrong.
Luigi Novi: Funny, because with what you just said, you’re only digging your own hole deeper. Up until now, you’ve been satisfied with simply saying that you didn’t write the article. Now that’s moot, not only because I wasn’t talking to YOU with my first email, but because you agree with it. Of course you do. That’s why it’s on your site. That’s why I wrote to your site.

"Apparent" simply means EVIDENT. Even if Ebert could be construed as saying your site was "insane," the question of WHAT IT IS on the site that he felt was insane remains. I DOUBT he thinks reviewing for sex, profanity or violence is insane. It is the ridiculously paranoid interpretations of story elements you give, like saying that kissing on school property during school hours is somehow wrong. You simply took something that everyone would agree is necessary (reviewing for sex, profanity, etc.), including Ebert himself, most likely, and attached the word "insane" (already a bit removed, since, as aforementioned, he never used it), to that aspect. This is the Straw Man argument. What is objectionable, even if you disagree with this assessment, are the paranoid interpretations and condemnations pointed to, NOT the ordinary everyday reviewing of adult material, which I’m sure Ebert himself would praise, if it were limited to that.

CAP: No, I don't say. I agree with what was said, but I didn't say it. This whole tirade of yours is lame.
Luigi Novi: Pass the crutches. I didn’t say "YOU" did. I am speaking to whoever did write that statement.
CAP: You have said "you wrote" repeatedly. Skirting the issue only makes you more culpable.
Luigi Novi: Last time I checked, Mr. Proper Grammar, the word "you" is a personal pronoun, not a name. It is used to refer to a specified listener that the speaker has already indicated. Anyone with half a brain could see who I was talking to. But again, if you want to take the brunt of something that was never intended for you in the first place, go right ahead.

CAP: Don't you think it is time to bring this up to a level at least slightly above a spitting contest.
Luigi Novi: Funny how you keep making allusions to childishness. (Is repeatedly calling me "Mr. Parochial" supposed to be any more intellectual or mature a tactic than my pointing out when the author of an article on your site is dishonest?) Looking for any hint of flesh on otherwise non-sexualized images of people is something children actually DO. Funny how you do the same thing on your site with a movie character taking her son river rafting, and then claim maturity.

And by the way, that last sentence should’ve ended in a question mark.

Luigi Novi: Again, he was PRASING ANOTHER site, not referring to yours.
CAP: ...by belittling ours.
Luigi Novi: Interesting. If you’re at the bus stop, and the bus is late, do you typically feel that the bus driver was personally mad at you? If someone standing next to you is praised, is that belittling to you because you weren’t? Just because you’re site is brought up in one point of criticism in a conversation (when he merely said few movies was "innocent") does not necessarily mean that every other statement thereafter is another reference to it, direct, or indirect. That is ONE possibility when interpreting his words. It is not the only one.

CAP: Show me where the press release says "Ebert said the CAP site was insane.
That is, if you are ready to be proven wrong again.
Luigi Novi: Funny how you think something is "proven" merely with an assertion. It isn’t. But in answer to your question,

"Ebert apparently considers it "insane" for a Christian movie review site to consider profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical messages in its analysis of films."

You can split hairs all you want about how this was a press release that your site "LINKED TO," rather than one that was "on" your site. It makes no difference to me. The link is on your site. You linked to it. You even stated you agree with it.

You say you interpret Ebert’s words praising another site as belittling to your site. Fine. I interpret a link to that article on your site as the same thing as an article ON your site. Funny how you have this privilege and I don’t.

CAP: Your statements used "reviews." And if you had done any research, you'd know our analyses are not "reviews."
Luigi Novi: Sophistry.

CAP: Though the homosexual is as precious to Jesus as I am and as you are,
practicing homosexuality is a sin.
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure why you’re now bringing up homosexuality, since we weren’t talking about that, but since you bring it up, and say it is a sin, then perhaps you should stop looking at the crotches of animated male characters’ underwear to see if they "warp."

Luigi Novi: You can call it the "truth" if you want.
CAP: What *I* call it is meaningless.
Luigi Novi: NOW we’re getting somewhere!

CAP: What God calls it is paramount.
Luigi Novi: Joke’s on you, T. I read God’s column in Daily Variety. He gave "Atlantis" four stars.

Luigi Novi: You can call it a windmill a giant, or say a naked emperor walking down the street has clothes on. Doesn’t make it so.
CAP: Grasping argumentative superiority with middle school " You are one, too"
rationale is not at all becoming of a professional.
Luigi Novi: Literary references to Don Quixote and Hans Christian Andersen is "middle school rationale"? Darn. I was going for "college-level condescension."

Luigi Novi: LOL! What difference does it make if they "warp open"? Did they warp open IN THE MOVIE? I must say, I don’t often notice that men’s underwear warps open, or their open legs. Is there some particular reason YOU fixate on it?
CAP: I guess if I fixated on men's underwear there would be some reason for it. And your expert evasion of the issue does not rescue you form guilt or from being wrong.
Luigi Novi: Hey, a guy’s gotta have a vocation. Why not evasion? Besides, I flunked out of "Animated Male Crotch-Monitoring" in high school.

Luigi Novi: …let alone what's "anti-Christian" about it.
CAP: Walk into the nearest police station wearing only your boxers and you'll find out. I would suggest trying it in the nearest elementary school to find out but "what's wrong with having adults walking around in their" underwear,
Luigi Novi: They weren’t IN a police station, period.
CAP: But the people in the audience were watching it. The movie screen is public.
Luigi Novi: So WHAT? The viewers see people in their underwear IN THEIR CABINS, not at a police station or school. If one of the driving considerations in pointing out certain elements in films is the likelihood of children "imitating" it, then won’t the child in question see that the character is in their underwear ONLY in their PRIVATE quarters? Show me a child so dumb that they’ll think, "Oh, Milo was in his boxers in his cabin in that animated kid’s movie, so that must mean I can go to school or a police station in mine."

Luigi Novi: By the way, just what do you think would happen if someone DID walk into a police station in boxers? I doubt that’s illegal, and even if it were, you didn’t single it out under the "Wanton Crime" list. You listed it under your "Sex/Homosexuality" list.
CAP: It is indecent exposure.
Luigi Novi: I doubt that. If it’s a type of garment that covers a substantial portion of the lower body, the cops won’t do a thing. Otherwise, is wearing a standard bathing suit or trunks "indecent"?

CAP: Your integrity is obvious from your repeated calling people liars with no proof or evidence, just manufactures opinions.
Luigi Novi: Would you prefer if my opinions were homespun from wicker using advice from "Martha Stewart’s Living"?

Luigi Novi: So now you can estimate my character and level of integrity? Funny how you asked me earlier if I was a shrink. Are YOU a psychic?
CAP: One can estimate anyone's character and integrity from the content of their arguments.
Luigi Novi: And yet, when I casually used the word "schizophrenic," which is something many people do in casual conversation (though NOT to imply psychological expertise), you balked. So you can make all sorts of assumptions about me, but I can’t about you, huh? Why am I not surprised?

CAP: You are the "psychologist." You should know that.
Luigi Novi: You’re the one who referred to me as such, not I. Any churl knows that people use words like "schizophrenic" in a casual everyday use of the word, and not to imply a professional conclusion. I suppose you don’t.

Luigi Novi: He continued by citing your "Planet of the Apes" review: "beatings y animals," "smoking what appears to be narcotics (by apes), " and an "offensive to God--entire show built on evolution." I don’t see what’s wrong with showing villains acting like villains.
CAP: Then there is nothing wrong with placing vile things before your eyes, Mr. Parochial?
Luigi Novi: There is something wrong with going to see a movie with good guys and bad guys, and being shocked as seeing (GASP!) bad guys acting BAD. Conflict is a part of fiction, and conflict often requires villains who act contrary to the hero or protagonist.

CAP: You might be. But I DO know it takes more than *saying* one is a Christian to *be* a Christian. For example, it takes honoring His Word which makes the behaviors discussed above unacceptable. And one of the behaviors He tells us to avoid is to continue to argue with they who will not listen. Namely you.
Luigi Novi: Since you continue to argue with me (when you could’ve simply dumped my email in the trash), does that mean you’re not a Christian?

Luigi Novi: People who say otherwise are merely ignorant of what science is, and under the mistaken beliefs that Biblical texts are only valid if they are taken to be literal.
CAP: I see. Situational redefinition, counterfeiting and conditional application of His Word.
Luigi Novi: No. Common sense. And indeed, terms and phrases often ARE defined with different connotations, subtexts and nuances in different situations. I might’ve thought someone who placed so much emphasis on grammar such as you would understand that.

CAP: The Pope is not God nor is the Pope the Final Word. Luigi Novi: Perhaps not (I don’t know what denomination you belong to), but I wouldn’t dismiss him outright. Moreover, St. Augustine himself stated that the "six days" of creation mentioned in the Bible should not be taken literally.
CAP: Many of they who stand before us in robes will shed their robes to the flames of the fiery pit.
Luigi Novi: And their websites as well.

Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that theories with substantial enough documented proof and acceptance can be called "facts," I’m not going to get into an argument over evolution, but I would recommend reading Chapters 9-11 of Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things (1999; Freeman and Company).
CAP: I would intentionally and purposely prevent exposure of myself to anything you recommend.
Luigi Novi: How mature of you.

CAP: They are issues of rebellion. And who cares if they are "antiChristian?" They are sinful *because* they are rebellious.
Luigi Novi: Nonsense. Christ was a rebel.
CAP: Christ was God.
Luigi Novi: Irrelevant. The point is that he lived in a time that called for change, and opposed the powerful authorities of his time. Arguing about his divinity is beside the point.

Luigi Novi: Some of the greatest heroes and thinkers in history were rebels. This COUNTRY was founded on rebellion. Rebellion, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. It must be weighed against the CONTEXT of the situation. Because you’re too blind to understand this point, you lump in perfectly LEGITIMATE acts of rebellion, like Muhammad Ali’s refusal on principle to go to war, along with NON LEGITIMATE rebellion, as if viewers are too stupid to discern the difference. Yes, you go on and on about not "reviewing" movies, but if this were true, you wouldn’t use such the subjective numbering system that you do, which is clearly a value judgement.
CAP: It is completely objective to His Word, not your sitatuonal redefinition of it, your counterfeiting of it, or your conditioanl application of it.
Luigi Novi: Last time I checked, God didn’t provide any "word" as to anything Muhammad Ali did, nor did I even mention God when talking about Ali in particular, or rebellion in general. But in coming to us as Jesus, God commanded others to rebel against others when it was necessary. There’s nothing "counterfeit" about that. Was it against God’s word for black slaves to rebel against their slaveowners? It is a simple fact that right and wrong concerning certain acts often depends on the situation. Killing someone is wrong, but doing so in self-defense is not. For anarchists or militias to try to overthrow the government is wrong. To oppose serving in a war that one sincerely feels is morally unjust is not.

Luigi Novi: If you truly wanted parents to make their own decision, you’d tell them what was in it without any of YOUR OWN conclusions or value judgements.
CAP: In the Summary/Commentary section, I can say whatever I want because that is what it is - a summary in commentary format.
Luigi Novi: In other words, a review.

CAP: But the Findings/Scoring section, the heart of the CAP analysis model, is completely objective to His Word.
Luigi Novi: You mean your conditional interpretation and situational definition of it.

CAP: He was wrong for avoiding the draft if that is what he did.
Luigi Novi: That may be your opinion, but it isn’t mine, and it isn’t necessarily God’s.

CAP: You will stand before God one day to give an accounting of your management of your family.
Luigi Novi: Get in line.

Luigi Novi: Whoever wrote that statement is a liar, period,
CAP: Your incessant and vain claims of that are gossamer. No substance. No objective proof. Only whims.
Luigi Novi: Sounds like you’re describing religion.

CAP: Indeed, it sounds as though you are very jealous.
Luigi Novi: Of what? Being demented? Hypocritical? Not being able to make coherent conclusions? Lack of critical thinking? Treating the Bible like a cult leader? Yeah, I’m GREEN with envy.

Luigi Novi: and it is to them that I made that statement.
CAP: It is to me you addressed it.
Luigi Novi: Good luck arguing that to MSN/Hotmail.

CAP: You reap what you sow.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, Woody Harrelson told me the same thing. And man, does he have the wardrobe to prove it!

CAP: And what you have sown will make good reading for parents and grandparents in my next book.
Luigi Novi: Great. I’ll post this exchange on the message boards I like to frequent. The others there will get a good laugh at it.

CAP: Anonymously, of course.
Luigi Novi: Be sure to spell my name right. That’s A-N-O-N-Y-M-O-U-S. Given the number of spelling and grammar errors in your letter, I thought it prudent to mention that.

CAP: And I am going to observe His Word about trying to deal with they who simply will not listen and block you. I will not see another of your emails in our inbox again (unless of course you further prove your demonstrated level of integrity by using deceit with some other email address or get someone else to continue your attacks).
Luigi Novi: Hey, good idea! Thanks for suggestion.

Oops! I forgot to provide T. Carder's full letter (which I received today) before my rebuttal to it. Here it is:

On 1/21/02 7:45 PM, the CAP ministry wrote:

CAP: I didn't write it. You are in trouble for slander.
I’m petrified.

Petrified may not be necessary. But if you lose your account because of
slander, it will have an effect.

It’s on your site. Whoever wrote it is a liar.

You addressed your accusation to me.

Luigi Novi: This is a typical ploy in debate by those who don't know how to
argue honestly or maturely.

CAP: Sounds as though you are quite adept in it.
Luigi Novi: Any time you want to show me where I used a straw man argument, hey, have a party.

You just did.

Luigi Novi: Take what the other person said, and twist it around into something else entirely that doesn't bear any resemblance to what he/she actually said--often an outrageous caricaturized version of the original statement, and disagree with that. It's easier to disagree with an absurd statement that no one ever made, isn't?

CAP: I don't know. The press release did not agree or disagree with something that was not said.
Luigi Novi: I don’t know what "press release" you’re referring to.

I don't believe you. "Everything I responded to on your part I quoted from your website." If you really got your information from our website you'd know that it came from the TVC Press Release.

And it is "I don't know to what press release you are referring."

You put words into Roger Ebert’s mouth.

I didn't write it. You are putting words in MY mouth.

He complimented another website by saying it offers "sane" and "sensible" advice.

...and by literary contrasting called ours "insane."

You turned this around by telling others that he "apparently" thinks reviewing movies for sex, nudity, profanity or other things inappropriate for children was "insane," something
he never said.

I explained that to the satisfaction of a rational and reasonable adult. That you continue to argue it does not defeat it.

The only thing he did take issue with (and he was right to do so) was your ridiculous focusing on things like "throwing out a sandwich that mom made" or Meryl Streep wearing appropriate river rafting attire in "The River Wild," which you claimed constituted showing too much of her body in front of her son, which is utterly idiotic.

To those who care not about proper and wholesome.

Luigi Novi: This is called the Straw Man argument.

CAP: Now I am convinced you are indeed expert at it. And thank you for revealing
the name of such a tactic. Many try to use it against us ... including you apparently.
Luigi Novi: Again, I challenge you to provide one example of my use of the
Straw Man.

Ibid.

Everything I responded to on your part I quoted from your website. Your response to my assertion about your use of the Straw Man seems to be along the lines of simply throwing the accusation back at me reflexively, the way children do with insults.

When you use childish tactics....... Such as refusing to admit you are wrong and apologize.

Luigi Novi: You say Ebert thinks it's insane to review for profanity, explicit sex, and
anti-Biblical messages.

The press releases says "apparently." But I didn't say it. I agree with it but I didn't say it. You continue to be wrong.

CAP: No, I don't say. I agree with what was said, but I didn't say it. This whole tirade of yours is lame.
Luigi Novi: Pass the crutches. I didn’t say "YOU" did. I am speaking to whoever did write that statement.

You have said "you wrote" repeatedly. Skirting the issue only makes you more culpable.

Luigi Novi: Indeed, you must also hear Dobermans barking orders to you, since only a schizophrenic would read the article in question and assert that Ebert ever said such a thing.

CAP: So. You are a degreed psychiatrist? No? An educated psychologist?
No. A trained behavioral analyst? No? A clerk in a shrink's office? No? Its janitor? No? Hmmmm!
Luigi Novi: I’m someone who notices when people make believe someone said one thing when they said another. Ebert never called your site insane, period.

The press release didn't say he did. Period.

CAP: What was said was "He noted that "At www.capalert.com, few films seem
innocent" and recommended another movie review site that offers "sane
advice" about movies. Ebert apparently considers it "insane" for a Christian
movie review site to consider profanity, explicit sex, and anti-Biblical
messages in its analysis of films." It is logical that "insane" would be
the intent of his panning us in labeling his contrasting site as "sane."
Luigi Novi: His "INTENT"? Oh, so now you’re a psychic? Perhaps you could
set up shop right next to my psychology practice.

I would end up doing nothing else from all the clientelle who walk out of
yours. (Don't you think it is time to bring this up to a level at least
slightly above a spitting contest.)

Again, he was PRASING ANOTHER site, not referring to yours.

...by belittling ours.

Luigi Novi: First of all, he never said your site was "insane."

CAP: The article did not say he did.
Luigi Novi: The statement on your site did.

Show me where the press release says "Ebert said the CAP site was insane.
That is, if you are ready to be proven wrong again.

Luigi Novi: In fact, he never even USED the word.

CAP: That comment seems to be a typical "...ploy in debate by those who
don't know how to argue honestly or maturely."..."to "Take what the other
person said, and twist it around into something else entirely..."
Luigi Novi: What "something else"? I quote YOUR site.

And I quoted you.

Your site used that word, implying what Ebert "thinks." He never used the word.

CAP: Your entire diatribe seems to be focused on our "reviews." Luigi Novi: Uh, no, my statement was to point out that you put words in Ebert’s mouth (and now seem to be able to divine his "intent"—do you read tea leaves too?) that he never used.

Your statements used "reviews." And if you had done any research, you'd know our analyses are not "reviews."

CAP: We do not prepare movie reviews. They are analyses for Christian
parents and grandparents telling them the truth about the content of movie…
Luigi Novi: They are lies.

Though the homosexual is as precious to Jesus as I am and as you are,
practicing homosexuality is a sin.

You are liars.

That you say that does not make it true.

Saying that there is a "tale of a homosexual kiss" in Disney’s "Atlantis" is a lie.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Obviously. You cannot take
something out of a movie after it is has been seen. Just because you don't
want it there does not make it go away.

You can call it the "truth" if you want.

What *I* call it is meaningless. What God calls it is paramount. Whether
you believe it or not.

You can call it a windmill a giant, or say a naked emperor walking down the street has clothes on. Doesn’t make it so.

Grasping argumentative superiority with middle school " You are one, too"
rationale is not at all becoming of a professional.

Luigi Novi: nor do I know what's wrong with having adults walking around
in their boxers,

CAP: You are assuming people wear only boxers. And you must also be assuming the fly in boxers never warp open when sitting and you must be assuming no one wearing only boxers ever sits with their knees spread apart in the air and you must be assuming .......

Luigi Novi: LOL! What difference does it make if they "warp open"? Did they warp open IN THE MOVIE? I must say, I don’t often notice that men’s underwear warps open, or their open legs. Is there some particular reason YOU fixate on it?

I guess if I fixated on men's underwear there would be some reason for it. And your expert evasion of the issue does not rescue you form guilt or from being wrong.

Luigi Novi: let alone what's "anti-Christian" about it.

CAP: Walk into the nearest police station wearing only your boxers and you'll find out. I would suggest trying it in the nearest elementary school to find out but "what's wrong with having adults walking around in their" underwear,
Luigi Novi: They weren’t IN a police station, period.

But the people in the audience were watching it.

For Milo and the other characters to walk around in their cabins on the Ulysses is not an
elementary school or police station.

The movie screen is public.

Why bring those two places up, when that’s not what we’re talking about here?

I've explained that. Very well I might add.

By the way, just what do you think would happen if someone DID walk into a police station in boxers? I doubt that’s illegal, and even if it were, you didn’t single it out under
the "Wanton Crime" list. You listed it under your "Sex/Homosexuality" list.

It is indecent exposure.

CAP: So estimating from your character and level of integrity herein, you just might do it.
Luigi Novi: LOL! I love this!

I don't doubt that one bit. Your integrity is obvious from your repeated calling people liars with no proof or evidence, just manufactures opinions.

So now you can estimate my character and level of integrity? Funny how you asked me earlier if I was a shrink. Are YOU a psychic?

One can estimate anyone's character and integrity from the content of their arguments. You are the "psychologist." You should know that.

Luigi Novi: He continued by citing your "Planet of the Apes" review: "beatings by animals," "smoking what appears to be narcotics (by apes), " and an "offensive to God--entire show built on evolution." I don’t see what’s wrong with showing villains acting like villains.

CAP: Then there is nothing wrong with placing vile things before your eyes, Mr. Parochial? This is the CHILDCare Action Project. Luigi Novi: It is one thing to single out the violence in the movie. It is entirely another to place emphasis on the fact that it is "animals" who are doing this, as if that makes a difference.

Again you coyly evade the question.

Luigi Novi: As for evolution, there is nothing in it that is offensive to God.

CAP: Yes, there is. Whether you believe it or not. In any case, Mr. Gardner is addressing that with you.
Luigi Novi: I’m a Christian, and I say there isn’t.

You might be. I do not have the authority to say you are or are not. But I DO know it takes more than *saying* one is a Christian to *be* a Christian. For example, it takes honoring His Word which makes the behaviors discussed above unacceptable. And one of the behaviors He tells us to avoid is to continue to argue with they who will not listen. Namely you.

People who say otherwise are merely ignorant of what science is, and under the mistaken
beliefs that Biblical texts are only valid if they are taken to be literal.

I see. Situational redefinition, counterfeiting and conditional application of His Word.

CAP: The Pope is not God nor is the Pope the Final Word. Luigi Novi: Perhaps not (I don’t know what denomination you belong to), but I would dismiss him outright. Moreover, St. Augustine himself stated that the "six days" of creation mentioned in the Bible should not be taken literally.

Many of they who stand before us in robes will shed their robes to the flames of the fiery pit.

The sciences of observation describe and measure with ever greater precision the multiple manifestations of life…while theology extracts…the final meaning according to the Creator’s designs."

And I aced a Physics final with essentially the same reasoning, the *theory* of evolution is indeed subordinate to and affirming of Creation. Luigi Novi: Putting aside the fact that theories with substantial enough documented proof and acceptance can be called "facts," I’m not going to get into an argument over evolution, but I would recommend reading Chapters 9-11 of Michael Shermer’s Why People Believe Weird Things (1999; Freeman and Company).

I would intentionally and purposely prevent exposure of myself to anything you reocmmend.

Luigi Novi: Ebert also pondered your statements about "The Princess Diaries", wherein
you noticed there was "kissing on school property during school hours" and "trashing of lunch that Mom made." I don’t see what’s anti-Christian about any of this,

CAP: They are issues of rebellion. And who cares if they are "antiChristian?" They are sinful *because* they are rebellious.
Luigi Novi: Nonsense. Christ was a rebel.

Christ was God.

Some of the greatest heroes and thinkers in history were rebels. This COUNTRY was founded on rebellion. Rebellion, in and of itself, is neither good or bad. It must be weighed
against the CONTEXT of the situation. Because you’re too blind to understand this point, you lump in perfectly LEGITIMATE acts of rebellion, like Muhammad Ali’s refusal on principle to go to war, along with NON LEGITIMATE rebellion, as if viewers are too •••••• to discern the difference. Yes, you go on and on about not "reviewing" movies, but if this
were true, you wouldn’t use such the subjective numbering system that you do, which is clearly a value judgement.

It is completely objective to His Word, not your sitatuonal redefinition of it, your counterfeiting of it, or your conditioanl application of it.

If you truly wanted parents to make their own decision, you’d tell them what was in it without any of YOUR OWN conclusions or value judgements.

In the Summary/Commentary section, I can say whatever I want because that is what it is - a summary in commentary format. But the Findings/Scoring section, the heart of the CAP analysis model, is completely objective to His Word. And if you would do some research before making your slanderous and libel accusations, you'd know.

You don’t abstain from doing so, and have to nerve to imply that Ali was wrong to refuse to go to war.

He was wrong for avoiding the draft if that is what he did.

He wasn’t, and while I wouldn’t use movies to teach history to my kids, I WILL teach them about what he did with PRIDE.

You will stand before God one day to give an accounting of your management of your family.

CAP: What this sounds like is Denson being deceitful by using another email address and name to thwart our blocking of him. Luigi Novi: I don’t know of anyone by that name.

CAP: I expect an apology for calling me a liar WITHOUT attempts at qualification OR retaliatory comments within 30 calendar days at which time action will be considered unless you comply.
Luigi Novi: Don’t hold your breath.

I never mentioned YOU, nor anyone in particular by name.

You sent your slander to me using my email address.

Whoever wrote that statement is a liar, period,

Your incessant and vain claims of that are gossamer. No substance. No objective proof. Only whims. Indeed, it sounds as though you are very jealous.

and it is to them that I made that statement.

It is to me you addressed it. And it is me you called a liar in THIS email, too. You reap what you sow. And what you have sown will make good reading for parents and grandparents in my next book. Anonymously, of course.

I will not read another of your mails unless it begins AND maintains throughout an apology. But by the caliber of integrity you have demonstrated in these diatribes you would likely end your tirade with a retraction in the last words used. So, your accusations are being sent verbatim to your email provider for action in accordance with their acceptable use policy. It is up to them what happens to your account. And I am going to observe His Word about trying to deal with they who simply will not listen and block you. I will not see another of your emails in our inbox again (unless of course you further prove your demonstrated level of integrity by using deceit with some other email address or get someone else to continue your attacks).

CAP: Kerriem: Quite frankly I'm gonna be seriously suspicious of any male film critic that does have a big problem with that Swordfish scene.
Luigi Novi: I thought it was gratuitous.

That's not quite what I meant by 'big problem', Luigi.
Maybe I should have said "...any male film critic who didn't honestly enjoy - or at least didn't mind that Swordfish scene."
Which still isn't exactly what I was trying to get across, but it's definitely closer.

(BTW, what's 'CAP'?)

Hang on, went back and checked that CAP thing...erm...I'm sure you don't really think I'm affiliated with the capalert gang, right?

Luigi Novi: I thought it was gratuitous. It had nothing to do with Hugh Jackman waking up and asking to borrow her car. It might’ve made sense in the later scene where she’s stripping, and Jackman sees the wire she has taped to her body, which is where he finds out she’s an undercover agent, but in that prior scene, there was no reason for it. Sure, she’s hot, but in the context of story, there was no reason for it.

The point was that he knew that it was gratuitous, but in this kind of movie gratuitous sex & violence are called for. As he said about Road Trip.

Nude scenes should be inspired by the libido, not the box office. That's why I object to the phrase "gratuitous nudity." In a movie like this, the only nudity worth having is gratuitous.

Just like in a flick like The Fast & the Furious all the shots of the pimped out cars and engines is pointless to the plot, the visual gratification is it's own purpose, in the same way that a well choreographed gun battle or car chase would be.

Notice that this jackass never once responded to the fact that Ebert recommended www.screenit.com. For those of you not familiar with screen it, they count and tally cuss words, they tell what kinds of sex/nudity and how long each instance of it lasts, along with anything else that could be objectionable. They put it on a long page (I'm talking Luigi Novi long here) but categorize it so parents/guardians can quickly look up a topic of possible objections.

Yeah, my sister and brother-in-law (parents of five- and two-year-old boys) swear by ScreenIt.
I've looked at it myself occasionally, come to that - besides the parental warnings, they offer full and thoughtful reviews.

It seems like a pretty well-thought out site. I'd use it if I had kids.

The Bible is scientifically accurate. It mentions the Earth hanging in empty space, the water cycle, the shape of the planet, etc.

And frankly, I find the fact you claim your opinion to be a fact very insulting. You claim the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally and treat it as a fact.

And also what I find insulting is that you claim that those who believe the biblical account of creation are ignorant in the matters of science.
I have read many scientific articles that have proven the IMPOSSIBILITY of evolution.

Whether you want to admit it or not, your belief in evolution is based on blind faith.

I've looked at it myself occasionally, come to that - besides the parental warnings, they offer full and thoughtful reviews.

ironicly it's also good if you want to figure out if yourfavorite star gets naked in a film, the only thing they don't do is tell you if it's a body double or not.

The Bible is scientifically accurate. It mentions the Earth hanging in empty space, the water cycle, the shape of the planet, etc.

The Bible? Scientifically accurate? In what sense?

And the Earth does not "hang" in space - hang from what?

And frankly, I find the fact you claim your opinion to be a fact very insulting. You claim the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally and treat it as a fact.

The Bible, at best, is a human interpretation of the word of God. Since it was written down by humans, it is subject to human flaws. It is not factually-based.

And also what I find insulting is that you claim that those who believe the biblical account of creation are ignorant in the matters of science.

They are ignorant.

I have read many scientific articles that have proven the IMPOSSIBILITY of evolution.

Have you read any such articles in journals of evolutionary biology, genetics, or other such SCHOLARLY works?

Moreover, you can debunk evolution all you want - it doesn't make Creation "science" correct.

Whether you want to admit it or not, your belief in evolution is based on blind faith.

No, evolution is science. Belief in Biblical Creation is blind faith.

I have never understood why it is that people cannot leave reviewers of things like this alone. What harm does he do to anyone by reviewing a bleeding film? Hardly anyone is going to take his stuff seriously, but why should he have any less write to voice his views than anyone else?

Those who claim the Bible has no historical basis know nothing about it. The people who wrote most of it were essentially historians writing historical events down as best they could. The fact that it later became a religious text for hundreds of millions doesn't somehow make it all myth. The works of writers like Tacitus are as old and historically primitive as the Bible, but that is used as a basis for much knowledge about the Roman Empire.

Peter.

Anonymous: The Bible is scientifically accurate. It mentions the Earth hanging in empty space, the water cycle, the shape of the planet, etc.
Luigi Novi: It also mentions a burning bush, a talking snake, a virgin birth, and bringing the dead back to life. What’s your point? Singling out things that can be corroborated does make it scientifically accurate as a whole.

Anonymous: And frankly, I find the fact you claim your opinion to be a fact very insulting.
Luigi Novi: I never used either the word "opinion" or the word fact. You did. The question of those labels was not of paramount importance to me when making my comments, as I found it more important to couch them in terms of common sense. I have no problem acknowledging that this is an opinion. At the very least, it’s an informed one that I am more than willing to talk about in a civilized discussion.

Anonymous: You claim the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally and treat it as a fact.
Luigi Novi: I treat it as common sense, and argue this conclusion on its merits. Many of the stories in the Bible are found all over the world, in societies that invented them independently of the Bible, and in some cases, even before it. Take the Noachian flood myth. Birth and rebirth myths like the flood story are but one variation on the Sea Creation Story, which is found among the Burmese, Choctaw Indians, Egyptians, Icelanders, Maui Hawaiians and Sumerians. The earliest version is the Sumerian one, from around 2800 B.C.E., which predates the Biblical one by over a thousand years. Between 2000 to 1800 B.C.E., in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh learns of the flood from an ancestor named Utnapishtim. Utnapishtim was warned by the Earth-god Ea that the gods were about to destroy all life on Earth with a flood, and commanded to build an ark 120 cubits (180 feet) long, with seven floors, each divided into nine compartments, and to take along a pair of each animal. The story existed for centuries throughout the Near East and was known in Palestine before the arrival of the Hebrews. Literary comparison makes its influence on the Noachian flood story obvious.

As Joseph Campbell said throughout his career, whether these myths are literally true is to miss the point entirely. These flood myths have deeper meanings tied to re-creation and renewal. They’re not about "literal" truth. They address a psychological or spiritual struggle to deal with the passage of time and the major stepping stones in life—birth, death, marriage, growth into adulthood and old age, etc., and have nothing to do with science. To confuse religion and science is an insult to both.

Anonymous: And also what I find insulting is that you claim that those who believe the biblical account of creation are ignorant in the matters of science.
Luigi Novi: Never said that. I said those who think it needs to be "literal" in order to be valid in its function and who feel that science and religion are the same thing don’t know the difference between religion and science, and your comment about the scientific accuracy of the Bible proves it. You think scientific accuracy means "literally existing in real life," and that a book is scientifically accurate so long as it mentions something that one can interpret to be consistent with real life. If that is the definition of scientific accuracy, then Nostradamus’ quatrains, H.G. Wells stories, Mein Kempf, The Turner Diaries, The Bible Code, and numerous other similar works are scientifically accurate.

They are not.

Anonymous: I have read many scientific articles that have proven the IMPOSSIBILITY of evolution.
Luigi Novi: A word does not necessarily define something accurately by its mere attachment to that something by fiat. Hence, an article is not "scientific" simply because you label it as such. It is most likely that whatever materials you read were either written in post hoc manner by creationists who misinterpreted or exaggerated whatever information they came across to fit suit their needs, or misinterpreted by you yourself.

Any such work of MERIT should have been submitted for peer review in any of the journals of the scientific community. If you have links to any UNBIASED material challenging evolution, feel free to provide links to it.

Anonymous: Whether you want to admit it or not, your belief in evolution is based on blind faith.
Luigi Novi: I could take that comment more seriously if I thought you understood what any of these words you use meant. Clearly you don’t.

Try considering the logistics of LITERALLY fitting two each of millions of species and their food into a wooden boat 450 by 75 by 45 feet, feeding them, watering them, cleaning up after them, keeping them from preying on one another, and doing all this close to four thousand years ago. Then we’ll talk about "blind faith."

Peter: Why should he have any less write to voice his views than anyone else?
Luigi Novi: I never said he did, Peter. I respond to things like this for the same reason everyone responds to certain things they find objectionable, and for the exact reason you yourself stated some time ago that you come here.

I don’t like lies.

Lies must be challenged.

The obvious lie Sheldon made was implying that he knows what Roger Ebert "thinks," and deliberately misinterpreting his words. Ebert never said CapAlert was insane. He said no movie on it was innocent, and that Screenit.com offered "sensible and sane" advice. One can conclude that this was comment intended ONLY to refer to Screenit, or both that and a veiled swipe at CapAlert. There is no evidence pointing to one over the other. Sheldon simply "decided" Ebert meant the latter, because that’s he felt best justified his little diatribe.

But hey, let’s say it was a swipe at CapAlert, just for the sake of argument. Let’s take two things that can be found in some pro-parent reviews:

A. Legitimate reviewing for profanity, sex, violence, etc., wherein the reviewer describes each instance in detail for its presentation, context, and likelihood of imitation by a child.

B. Twisted, paranoid interpretations of film content, everything from finding supposed phallic symbols in architecture, to singling out children kissing on school property during school hours or throwing out a homemade sandwich in a Disney Cinderella-type story, to finding a mother in a tank top and shorts or a bathing suit in front of her son "improper" or "not wholesome."

Which do you feel Ebert, if he meant what Sheldon said he did, was criticizing? I’d say B. But no, Sheldon’s other lie is the tactic where says, "Hey, everybody, Ebert’s complaining about A!" Whereas someone like Ebert might criticize the objectionable element in a review, Sheldon simply grabs Ebert’s finger, pulls it toward the perfectly reasonable aspect of the review, and shouts to everyone that Ebert is criticizing something reasonable. I don’t like this type of dishonest argumentation, so I respond to it when I see it.

Peter: Those who claim the Bible has no historical basis know nothing about it.
Luigi Novi: Okay. (Did someone on this board say so?)

Peter: The people who wrote most of it were essentially historians writing historical events down as best they could. The fact that it later became a religious text for hundreds of millions doesn't somehow make it all myth.
Luigi Novi: No, they weren’t. The people who wrote it were converts and followers who were writing down spiritual/religious texts, often decades after the significant events therein occurred, as in the Gospels, to name an example. Modern historiography requires documentation of important events, often from independent sources for corroboration. It is a reasonable possibility that Jesus Christ lived, since he is mentioned outside of the Bible by non-Christian sources.

It is entirely another to say that the Immaculate Conception or the virgin birth were historically documented events. They are not. They are more accurately referred to as part of Christian dogma, and they are so because of the intent of those who wrote of them, and of the lack of scientific/historical evidence for them, not because they later became a religious text. They were a religious text when they were written, even if the religion in question was in its infancy.

Peter: The works of writers like Tacitus are as old and historically primitive as the Bible, but that is used as a basis for much knowledge about the Roman Empire.
Luigi Novi: But what is always important when historians examine ancient documents is to examine what biases the author was writing from. Such bias is often evident in the work, because history wasn’t in the first century what it is today, and authors may not have been so concerned with appearing unbiased. We even have evidence of multiple rewrites of certain texts that indicate bias, censorship, propoganda, etc. If the modern historical community refers to the works of Tacitus as an accepted reliable source, it is probably because they have examined it, and weighed it against all other lines of evidence from the periods or events in question.

Thanks, Luigi.

Concerning the historical accuracy of the Bible, I should mention that the Egyptians evidently did not think the events in Exodus important enough to mention in their histories.

I have never understood why it is that people cannot leave reviewers of things like this alone. What harm does he do to anyone by reviewing a bleeding film? Hardly anyone is going to take his stuff seriously, but why should he have any less write to voice his views than anyone else?

Personaly I enjoy the capalert site as one of my guilty pleasures. I read it in the same way that one might watch a train wreak or the Jerry Springer Show, don't want to keep looking but I can't look away.

Luigi Novi: I treat it as common sense, and argue this conclusion on its merits. Many of the stories in the Bible are found all over the world, in societies that invented them independently of the Bible, and in some cases, even before it. Take the Noachian flood myth.

This argument could really swing both ways. Hypothezise, for a moment, that there really WAS a Flood, and a man called Noah, and all the events as described there in the Bible did (literally) happen.

What's to say that that one account would not be passed down (and corrupted in the process) to all these differing cultures, down to our day? After all, Noah and his family are supposed to have been the predecessors of all these cultures to begin with.

And as for the logistics of the ark and its inhabitants, if you believe in God enough to believe in the flood legend, why wouldn't you have faith that God could sustain the ark inhabitants and protect them from starvation, sanitary problems, etc?

One last note. Were there as many species on Earth then as there are today? There certainly aren't as many varieties of dogs, cats, etc. And yes I realize these are variations of ONE species, but why couldn't the process of evolution be sped up after the animals were released from the ark? (This is assuming you believe in God and that you believe in the fact he controls the process of creation. It's all a matter of faith.)

Josh G: Concerning the historical accuracy of the Bible, I should mention that the Egyptians evidently did not think the events in Exodus important enough to mention in their histories.

The ancient Egyptians were notorious for destroying embarrassing or politcally incorrect historical records. The business with the Israelites was bad all around for the Egyptians (their slaves being freed, their gods proved worthless, their armies defeated). Why would they want to record it?

Fernando: This argument could really swing both ways. Hypothezise, for a moment, that there really WAS a Flood, and a man called Noah, and all the events as described there in the Bible did (literally) happen. What's to say that that one account would not be passed down (and corrupted in the process) to all these differing cultures, down to our day? After all, Noah and his family are supposed to have been the predecessors of all these cultures to begin with.
Luigi Novi: As I pointed out above, the story with Noah wasn’t the first. The Epic of Gilgamesh came first. That story didn’t feature Noah.

Fernando: And as for the logistics of the ark and its inhabitants, if you believe in God enough to believe in the flood legend, why wouldn't you have faith that God could sustain the ark inhabitants and protect them from starvation, sanitary problems, etc?
Luigi Novi: I don’t believe in it literally. Stories like this are myths. That isn’t a bad thing, mind you, because the use of the word "myth" isn’t an insult to the story. The word’s connotation refers to the function and meaning behind a story, rather than the question of whether it is literally true or not. I’m sure there may be some truth to it on some level or to some degree, but not to the degree that literalists would attribute it. We know that the geography of the area in which people live influence its culture and myths. Cultures whose major rivers flooded and destroyed the indigenous villages told flood stories, as in Sumeria and Babylonia where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers periodically flooded. Even cultures in arid regions have flood stories if they are subject to whims of flash flooding. By contrast, cultures not on major bodies of water typically have no flood stories.

The debate raised by T. Carder and Anonymous’ insistence on literalism, and by Jon Gardner and Anonymous’ insistence that the Bible is scientifically accurate is the difference between science and religion. When you start using God to explain away scientific impossibilities, it ceases to be science or history, because those things require theories that are testable and open to external validation. Citing God’s omnipotence is not.

You say "why wouldn’t you have faith that God could sustain the inhabitants," and "It’s all a matter of faith." I agree. It’s faith. Not science. Not history.

Fernando: Were there as many species on Earth then as there are today?
Luigi Novi: Some creationists do indeed try to get around the problem of the number of animals by saying that Noah "only" had 30,000 species in the Ark. Why these people think that 30,000 species of animal can live in an Ark (that’s 60,000 animals), or that Noah and his family could take care of them all is beyond me. The fossil record clearly shows that the current population of Earth is not traced back to a small number of animals that could’ve fit on an Ark 4,000 years ago. You’re also forgetting all the species of animals found in the Americas, which were not, and could not have sprung forth from animals living in the East.

Fernando, critics of Christianity are skilled at ignoring all the historical and scientific findings that support the Bible. What a shame that most Christians are equally good at ignoring the science and history that goes against their position. I dare say you know nothing about evolution except the basic ideals behind it. I suggest that if your faith is strong enough, then it will be able to withstand a simple book or two on the subject. Read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins and if you take it in you'll understand evolution much better. If you can't cough up the American equivalent of £9, I am sure your local library will have it. If your intellectual opposition amounts to nothing more than scouring one of those 50 page lists of "arguments against evolution" then some better research is definitely needed. Those arguments can be defeated, perhaps even by an amateur like me if you paste them. Stuff like "the eye could not have evolved - it is useless until complete" is bunk. I'll explain how if these myths are the reason for your opposition to evolution.

Peter.

In answer to the main arguments against evolution mentioned in the email to Luigi:

---

Quote:

This is, of course, completely ignoring the question of the origin of life itself. The very idea that organic matter could spring spontaneously from inorganic matter (abiogenesis) is routinely dismissed in science texts--that's how they used to believe flies formed in
manure--yet the theory of evolution rests upon this very idea.

---

---

Quote:

You cannot provide me a single measurable, observable example of a random genetic mutation that is both beneficial to the survival of the organism *and* results in a net increase in genetic information. These are the most basic requirements in order for evolution to have any chance at occurring, and they simply do not happen.

---

The ancient Egyptians were notorious for destroying embarrassing or politcally incorrect historical records. The business with the Israelites was bad all around for the Egyptians (their slaves being freed, their gods proved worthless, their armies defeated). Why would they want to record it?

I don't know why they would. But the Egyptians did record foreign conquests by the Hyksos among others, the religious unrest during the reign of Akhenaten, and other "embarrassing" events.

If the Egyptians were able to overcome their "embarrassment" over foreign conquests, I think the events in Exodus would have been recorded as well.

There is no corroborating evidence in archaeology or history for much of the The Bible. It is a religious text, not a purely historical work. That does not invalidate the meaning behind it, however.

Concerning inorganic versus organic matter, the terms do not refer to whether said matter is living or non-living, but rather as to whether they contain carbon. Organic compounds contain at least one atom of carbon (CO2, CO, CN, and some others are not considered "organic," however); inorganic compounds contain NO carbon.

Great post, Peter. It was well-written, I enjoyed reading it, and thanks for the link to that report by Barry Williams. It was an eye-opener.

Josh, I can't argue to the point of whether or why/why not the Egyptians recorded the Exodus, but I do know that the Egyptian rulers DID blot out references to their opponents and those they conquered or labelled blasphemers.

For example, when Akhenaton, then known as Amenophis IV, or Amenhotep IV, proclaimed Aton, the god of the sun, and one of many gods, to be the only god, and abolished the cult of Amen, the sacred god of Thebes (and effectively doing away with the pantheistic religion of the time), he blotted out the name of Amen from all inscriptions, including his own name, changing it to Akhenaton, and that of his father, Amenophis III.

After Akhentaon’s death, Tutankhamen became pharoah at age nine, and because of his youth, the priests were free to manipulate him so that they could reinstall the prior pantheistic system. His assassination at age 19 may have also been due to a desire on his part to continue Akhenaton’s monotheism, which was so hated by the priests that after Tutankhamen’s death, the priests ERASED ALL mentions of Tutankhamen’s name from all important monuments. This is why his cartouche isn’t included on the Walls at Abydos, where all the kings are listed, and why his name was ERASED from the Luxor Temple Colonade, which Tutankhamen himself decorated. If his small tomb in the Valley of the Kings wasn’t discovered in 1922, no one today outside of Egyptologists would know his name.

It’s possible that different pharaohs were angered by different things, and thus erased some things from the pyramid texts, but not others. I’m not arguing whether the Exodus happened one way or the other, merely stating that there WERE examples where they did do this.

Oh, I agree, Luigi, my point was that there is simply no archaeological evidence for Exodus.

Something probably happened that bears some relation to what the Bible says, vaguely at least.

Egyptian history is rife with examples of monuments being defaced, of course. The nephew of Hatshepsut (the only actual female Pharoah), for example, defaced parts of her mortuary temple upon her death (I think he was another Amenhotep).

A Conservative Christian's Take on CAPAlert

I'm a Christian. I'm pretty conservative. Throwing away all preassumptions, I visit www.capalert.com, and click on a review of a film I liked. I'll even be generous and do a handful of films, all of which I thought had something to say that was worthwhile.

First, let me say that these are all films that I would recommend for an ADULT, MATURE audience. I would definitely not take my kids to see Black Hawk Down, nor would I show them Lord of the Rings without an explanation about how magic isn't real.

Black Hawk Down
ME: It's a film that teaches an audience about the horrors of war, but it also talks about self-sacrifice and preserverance. It's a good anti-war film that also shows what it means to be a heroic unit.
CAP: CAP doubts the accuray of the portrayals of the men, saying it showed them as worried about their petty interests rather than as part of the command structure. SAY WHAT? Yes, the movie shows the top brass as sometimes being disturbingly unconcerned about what's going on. That is true. It has always been true in war. The men are portrayed as human (Ewan MacGregor's character just wants to get some action), but the topic of the unit and the team is stressed over and over. CAP even mentions later on the motto of "Leave no man behind." CAP says there is the possibility of desensitizing violence. True, although I think you are more densensitized to violence just sitting at home watching the war like it was a video game. I would imagine this movie was an education to people that didn't realize that (GASP!) people died in Somalia. If it did, it made its point. He closes by saying that violence, gore, and foul language are typical of war, but it shouldn't be entertainment. If I recall, the movie is not entertainment like say, Transformers, is entertainment--this is entertainment in it is telling a (true) story and making a point. If the movie portrayed a whitewashed version of the war, it would be telling a lie that I think Satan would approve of. That's why I recommended it for an ADULT, MATURE audience that understands what is going on should not be emulated.

Finding Forrester
ME: An intelligent (admittedly cliched) take on a street kid that is far better than what he appears to be. Has some good things to say about overcoming fear and stereotypes.
CAP: Liked the plot, but said that the "reality" of the film does not excuse the fact it shows off sin. I kind of agree, at times the profanity becomes gratuitous. But being put-off by it is missing the point, in my opinion. What I dislike about the rating system is that it does not take into account actions that are condemned in the film--the teacher's meannness, Jamal's thievery and lying. CAP closes by saying "Disguising sinful behavior in a theme plot does not excuse the sinful behavior." Sooo...if I made a movie about drug and alcohol dealers that were redeemed by Christ, that would be sinful? I would agree with CAP IF Finding Forrester featured an unrepentant Jamal (and even then I might not, depending on the message). It doesn't; Jamal AND Forrester have learned something.

The Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring
ME: A wildly entertaining epic that also a lot to say about self-sacrifice and duty.
CAP: I expected CAP to critique the element of magic; I can understood that. Yes, the movie is not for the children or the impressionable. It is quite graphic. However, CAP has a few quibbles that I find puzzling; he apparenntly finds the film's sinister portrayal of evil off-putting. Isn't evil supposed to be evil? I can understand if it's not your cup of tea, but I mean, c'mon. I can get why he may be opposed to Gandalf being a "Good wizard," but how are the portrayal of evil beings and demons "offenses to God?" CAP later blasts the suggestion that Frodo and Gandalf can be seen as Christ parallels because it is not a complete match (i.e., they sin). Actually, I would be offended more if it was a complete parallel, but anyway, Tolkien was not trying to do a Bible allegory, he was making a story thad points to say, some of which are biblical. The film's scene where Gandalf and Frodo talk about how Frodo hates the ring and wishes he never had it, but then Gandalf points out that it is not our place to judge these things but rather make the most of it, is AMAZINGLY Christian, in my opinion. No, it's not a perfect analogy, but it can be used, as my pastor has done, as a way of communicating a message, a point, a moral.

Finally, Road to Perdition
ME: An uncompromising look at what happens when you live a dirty life and about redemption.
CAP: CAP calls it a glamorization of Chicago gangsters. I can see it if you watch one or two disparate scenes, but does the BRUTAL death of every gang-related person in the film glamorize the gangster life? I mean, this is not like The Godfather when you may root for Michael Corleone as he kills his enemies. This is a realistic portrayal of brutal, dirty men. "That the movie portrays his father as knowing it was wrong to kill does not excuse it." I agree with the sentence, but it is a remarkably superficial take on the film. Sullivan is a complex character, and we never know how or even if he redeems himself...but his actions help to make his son redeemed and untainted. Sin begets sin; Sullivan must pay the piper for his former life with his death and the death of his family. Again, I think merely dismissing the film as showing hate and violence is a dismissal of what points it is trying to say.

I guess I can respect CAP for trying to admirably state his views, and YES, I know he is mainly talking to parents. I would not show my children probably any of the films I mentioned, with the exception of Lord of the Rings to older, mature kids. However, at times, he tries to lecture adults to not watch particular films, and here I take offense. I know it's an overripe chestnut, but the Bible is not a pretty book at times. It's a true story that depicts insidious evil, the uncompromising effects of sin, sex, violence, and a lot of other things CAP would disapprove of. But it's all there for a reason--God's teachings--just as it appears in movies for a reason. Merely dismissing films for showing evil or showing the act of sin is ludicrous, in my opinion.

I do like ScreenIt!, although if I'm looking for Christian reviews I go to www.christiananswers.net, which has the added advantage of posting a host of differing Christian perspectives.

Movieguide.org is about as conservative as CAP, but, to me, seems a little more, I don't know, deeper in its analysis. For instance, it recommended Lord of the Rings and A Beautiful Mind. While adult films with "objectionable" content, they contained a remarkable message of redemption, the author states.

The letters Luigi received in response to his questions are a great example of civility, and lack thereof. Mr. Gardner's response, although in disagreement with Luigi's views, was civil, offering measured (albeit biased) suggestions. It was not demeaning or spiteful, and didn't resort to cheap insults to make points. In other words, Gardner was professional, and as such a positive reflection of his organization, CAP.
Mr. Carder's letter, on the other hand, was little more than an emotional attack against anything he could find to pick on. His later letters maintained this pattern, even resorting to nitpicking Luigi's (few) grammatical errors while committing them himself.
I don't think Luigi intended to convert either man from their religion nor shut down CAP, but Mr. Carder's letters certainly seemed to treat Luigi as though that were the case. It's a shame, because any point that Carder could have made to illuminate his case was lost in hostility.
I especially found interesting that while Gardner suggested that Luigi examine a link he'd provided as a starting point to learn more about Biblical views regarding life and creation (which Luigi did indeed check out), Carder refused to return the same courtesy to Luigi when Luigi offered a link to an opposing viewpoint. (CAP: "I would intentionally and purposely prevent myself from being exposed to anything you recommend." I wonder what he would do if Luigi recommended that Carder re-examine the Bible!)
I can't help but wonder how differently things may have turned out had Carder not erroniously presumed from the outset that Luigi was someone else, someone against whom Carder was clearly biased.
Opposing viewpoints made without hostility can yield positive results, such as willingness of those opposed to your points to at least examine them. Examining opposing viewpoints can enable you to see things in a new light, or at least understand what those viewpoints are actually about and why they're being held. Disagreement can be healthy for the mind. Hostile disagreement is at best counterproductive.
This is getting to be too "soap box"-ish for a movie board, but I just wanted to state my reaction to what's been posted. Thanks for listening.

There are the makings of a science-fiction story in some of what has been discussed. People believed one thing in the past, and they believe something else now. In the future, they may go back to the old belief or believe something else. My point is, what if the Bible was right when lots of people believed in it, evolution is right now because people believe in it, and something else becomes right when many people begin to believe in that? Couldn't a great story be made of the idea that people could ignore gravity if enough people believed it could be done? Just about any theory you can present to explain anything is probably far-fetched. I don't think it's any more goofy to believe that some divine being thought out and created everything than to believe they just kind of happened without any direction.

"WHEN lots of people believed in it?"

Get a load of this. G rated films more profitable than R rated ones.

I sent them this letter. I'm waiting to see i fhtye respond.

I have a serious question about your study of R rated films vs. G rated films. Do you really believe that if Hollywood produced mostly G rated film’s they would start making more money off of them or are you just trying to make a political point? Did you ever notice that probably at least half of those G rated films are Disney blockbuster children’s films with $100 million advertising budgets and product tie-ins with McDonalds. At the same time many of those R rated films that are released each year are edgy indi fare that’s never going to be screened outside of the big cities (or below the Mason-Dixon Line as Woody Allen once quipped about his films’ limited releases) and have very little advertisement. Even most of the big $100+ million blockbuster action films (unless they have the word “Matrix” or “Terminator” in the title) are PG-13 since it’s considered risky to release a $100 million dollar action film with an R rating.

Do you really believe that if Hollywood produced 93 G rated children’s films a year they would all make 11 times more than 10 R rated ones if the positions were reversed? If anything the gross numbers would probably reverse since many of the G rated children’s films would get either limited release or not do nearly as well at the box office (parent‘s don‘t take the little kids to the movie theater 2 times a week every week) and adults would be starved for something to watch.

Numbers can be manipulated to mean anything that you want them to. Of the top 100 box office grossing films of all times only 10 of them are G rated (that‘s 10%) and of those G rated ones 9 were produced by Disney. The only one that was not a Disney film was produced in 1939 (Gone With the Wind, MGM.) So according to those numbers unless you are Disney it’s not in your best interest to make a G rated film. 49 of those top grossing films are PG-13, that’s almost half and that doesn’t even account for the probability that “Jaws” & “Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom” would probably have been PG-13 if that rating existed when they were produced.

Using your numbers you could also say that animated films are more profitable than live action ones and that Hollywood is simply producing live action films because they want to not because the public wants to see actors on the screen.

http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php

Get a load of this. G rated films more profitable than R rated ones.

I sent them this letter. I'm waiting to see i fhtye respond.

I have a serious question about your study of R rated films vs. G rated films. Do you really believe that if Hollywood produced mostly G rated film’s they would start making more money off of them or are you just trying to make a political point? Did you ever notice that probably at least half of those G rated films are Disney blockbuster children’s films with $100 million advertising budgets and product tie-ins with McDonalds. At the same time many of those R rated films that are released each year are edgy indi fare that’s never going to be screened outside of the big cities (or below the Mason-Dixon Line as Woody Allen once quipped about his films’ limited releases) and have very little advertisement. Even most of the big $100+ million blockbuster action films (unless they have the word “Matrix” or “Terminator” in the title) are PG-13 since it’s considered risky to release a $100 million dollar action film with an R rating.

Do you really believe that if Hollywood produced 93 G rated children’s films a year they would all make 11 times more than 10 R rated ones if the positions were reversed? If anything the gross numbers would probably reverse since many of the G rated children’s films would get either limited release or not do nearly as well at the box office (parent‘s don‘t take the little kids to the movie theater 2 times a week every week) and adults would be starved for something to watch.

Numbers can be manipulated to mean anything that you want them to. Of the top 100 box office grossing films of all times only 10 of them are G rated (that‘s 10%) and of those G rated ones 9 were produced by Disney. The only one that was not a Disney film was produced in 1939 (Gone With the Wind, MGM.) So according to those numbers unless you are Disney it’s not in your best interest to make a G rated film. 49 of those top grossing films are PG-13, that’s almost half and that doesn’t even account for the probability that “Jaws” & “Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom” would probably have been PG-13 if that rating existed when they were produced.

Using your numbers you could also say that animated films are more profitable than live action ones and that Hollywood is simply producing live action films because they want to not because the public wants to see actors on the screen.

http://movieweb.com/movies/box_office/alltime.php

Your points are good and are what I thought of when I read this article. I will point out, though, that one other reason for the success of G-rated films is the relative paucity of them (rarely do you see a couple G-rated films premiere on the same week) means that parents with kids are stuck going to whatever movie is non-objectionable. The study suggests to me that Hollywood needs to make better G-rated movies, so we're not forced to making our kids sit through "Son of the Mask" or "Shark Boy and Lava Girl" (which I think are PG, actually).

In capalert's response to Luigi, they say they don't do "reviews." But on the main page of their site, they use the word "reviews" themselves, albeit in quotes.