McLuhan

you're almost right in [1806]
but I'm sure robol and I just take intellectual swipes at 'positions', rather than it being truly personal. Certainly, I don't feel insulted by what he said (some of which might or might not be accurate) - but the origins of this debate are, I believe, a result of a genuine dichotomy of values;

err egregiously and prosper anyway...It is not dichotomy but a regular fallacy proceeding from false premise. Not much of a value either...

lady_A says in [1708]:
We have this exposition in Brussels about Morphology in the non-sacred in 20th century Polish art. The website is also in English and I tought it's also interesting for you to check this out :

http://www.atelier340muzeum.be

---

lady_B comments 4 hrs later:
I've recently heard an interview with one of Krakow's painters who commented briefly on a "recent rush to make big money by using religious motifs"

I understand that thanks to their "creative perspective", still "creative" although this similar to their teachers', several "students" had their names published on an international exhibition, is that right?

Dear mercenary art..

---

[1711 - 1719] an impressive bunch of links
and lady_A says:
So, people really should shut up before seeing an exhibition ...
[1729]

---

[1734]fellow_C: I have the right to call it what I want without seeing it

---

[1761] second shift by fellow_C from the original premises of [1729] to: Is anybody terribly offended by my calling this 'non-art'?

which BTW are the premises of offence versus tolerance, which were spelled out in [1720]

SUPERfaithful flame

bibliography:

• http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm
  the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition's best argument
• http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
• Ban the Bible Responses
  material for white misogynists
  
• condescension
  contempt with the spite diluted but the fake authority retained:
• Plausibility
  Plausibility We are so afraid to step on toes that we compromise the truth. The use of the word "nice" as a compliment was first recorded in 1769 when is came to mean "agreeably delightful". But in the post-modern times of today, this word, as used by those not wishing to admit to the truth of things, has come to be a negative weapon meant to cut off the knees of one’s opponent—"You’re not being nice!" No one wants to be thought of as being unkind, of course. It is interesting to examine the meaning of the word, "nice". "Nice" comes from the Latin, nescius, which comes from nescire. Nescire is formed from ne (meaning "not") and scire (meaning "to know"). Thus the word, "nice", means "to not know", "to not separate from another", "to not discern". This is interesting in that, for example, the standard liberal tactic of political correctness is to use the idea of "niceness" as a way to control people to keep them from discerning the truth, to keep from judging distinctions between that which is right and that which is wrong. In Middle English the word "nice" referred to being foolish and without sense. By the 15th Century the word referred to being elegant in conduct and dress, but not in the sense of a compliment; it was an insult referring to people behaving with "false civility".