First off, the people. Over the course of the year, my blog referenced 150 unique individuals. As I was inputting the tags, I went through the stretch where my blog was in the midst of a blog war with the Debunking Atheism Christianity site, and I figured John Loftus would be the top individual mentioned. Instead, it turns out that Daniel Morgan got 29 posts mentioning him to Loftus’s 27 posts.

The other key aspect is Scripture. I had 266 unique Scripture tags. The most commonly referenced Scripture in that first year was Hebrews 6:18.

Very definitely, presuppositional apologetics took the center stage during that first year. I even had my seven-part critique of Witmer’s critique of presuppositionalism. However, being “ancient history” in blog terms, I discovered much of what was linked has vanished.

I also discovered that the old comments were wiped out during one of the updates I did. Actually, I seem to remember this happening at the time as it didn’t exactly surprise me. I’ll still like to see if I can find the comments, maybe on an archive, and restore them.

In any case, I’ll have more thoughts when I finish the entire project and get caught up to this year’s posts. Only 5 years and change to go! :-D

The arrest warrant remains sealed and police have revealed few details in the incident that began Feb. 1 was Koenig was seen on a surveillance tape being led away against her will at about 8 p.m. from the coffee hut against where she worked by a man with a weapon.

So we have the sentence start with “was Koenig was”, moving to “against where she worked” and the fact that she “worked by a man with a weapon” in that sentence.

Grammar aside, I pray she will be found safe and unharmed.

Update: The Washington Post managed to have a poorly placed clause too, in this article (original link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/explosion-in-pursued-vehicle-kills-driver-burns-border-patrol-agent-in-san-diego-county/2012/03/15/gIQAOEEPES_story.html).

The Border Patrol agent was walking toward the car when it exploded and suffered minor burns, Pitts said.

It’s always sad when cars suffer minor burns….

When Joseph Smith dictated the words to the Book of Mormon, he embarked on a difficult task. Mormons are often quick to point out what an amazing job it was for Smith to produce a work of that magnitude in such a short time. So unlikely is this feat, they claim, it proves the miraculous nature of the Book of Mormon.

As a writer, however, I often will have a complete story made up in my mind before I begin to write it. It is not a very complicated task to write out a long story in a short period of time if you have already thought about what the entire story would be. While this isn’t true of every person, the fact that I know it’s true for me shows that one cannot claim quickness of writing as proof of inspiration from God. Not unless one wishes to claim I am likewise inspired by God (a claim I would not make of my own writing).

Naturally, Mormons could argue that while I have taken college courses in writing, Joseph Smith was an uneducated man who would have been unable to write something of the magnitude of the Book of Mormon, and therefore it had to have been revealed to him. Yet even writings Smith penned that Mormons do not consider to be inspired, such as personal letters, demonstrate he was skilled in oratory. He may never have taken classes to learn to write or to speak well, but neither did most orators throughout time. Classes are not a prerequisite to writing well—especially when one is dictating what is written—although classes will certainly benefit those who take them.

Because SEALs are not actors, the most common criticism that I read before watching the movie is that the dialogue comes off as a bit wooden. This is true, although that wasn’t the biggest drawback for me. Rather, for me it was the lack of character development. In one part, it’s because of the realistic aspects they were trying for. While they were trying to put two of the SEALs forward as main characters, since it would be physically impossible for two people to do all the action shots, the jobs were split up among several different characters. Which means that unlike movies where Bruce Willis kills all the bad guys and you know he’s the star, there’s no true “star” doing all the action. And in fact during the heat of battle, it becomes difficult even to tell who is who on the screen.

Again, that all plays well to the realism of the film, but not to the character development. In order to care more about the characters, the audience needs that development.

This is not to say it was a bad movie. Far from it. I would give the movie a B+, and perhaps even an A- depending on the mood I’m in. Is it worth watching again? Not at the theater—but on DVD, yes. And for those who do spend money watching movies at the theater, it’s worth the night out. (For those who never spend money at the theater, this isn’t the type of movie that you should change your mind about cinema habits over, however.)

Update: One thing I should clarify about the dialogue sounding “wooden” is that it only did so in the situations that were more dramatic oriented. When it was the inter-squad banter and the briefing reports going on, the dialogue sounded absolutely incredible. Plus, the reviews I read about how awesome the interrogation scene was were spot on. It was some incredible writing, and a great delivery by the actors involved.

Everything that is, when seen through time’s lens,
Was built on the ashes of all our might-have-beens.

Seems to be a truism. Or, as The Offspring might say, a Half-Truism.

Plus he’s got good theology to boot, seeing as how he’s OPC (it’s what PCA Presbyterians would be if we stopped drinking alcohol and joined the Only Perfect Church…).

In any case, I definitely recommend him. He’s scholarly, but easy to read and great with language all around!

This is the point I’m making…
Even if you don’t know you know,
You know I am not breaking
These rules designed to slow

The thought processes governed by
A logical process of design.
This is the reason that we try
To avoid crossing any line,

Breaking any number of rules.
You may accuse me of
The qualities of a thousand fools
With intellect not quite above

Those you’d never glance at twice.
And I still think I shall care about
Things like truth and sacrifice.
Of certain things, I have no doubt,

I have made my own selection
Upon further reflection.
Upon further reflection,
I have made my own selection.

Of certain things I have no doubt:
Things like truth and sacrifice.
And I still think I shall care about
Those you’d never glance at twice

With intellect not quite above
The qualities of a thousand fools!
You may accuse me of
Breaking any number of rules

To avoid crossing any line.
This is the reason that we try
A logical process of design,
The thought processes governed by

These rules designed to slow
(You know, I am not breaking–
Even if you “don’t know”, you know.)
This is the point I’m making:

When everything’s coherent
Every part fits its own section.
It is a little more apparent
Upon further reflection.

To demonstrate that five-paragraph essays stifle creativity, one only need to examine the fact that our greatest heroes in literature are precisely those authors who manage to break the mold, transcend the rules, and demonstrate their greatness through the application of style. This is the essence of creativity, the genius inside a man or woman that enables him or her to soar to heights only slightly lower than the angels can attain. Yet if one attempts to do this in a five-paragraph essay, one finds one’s grade significantly lowered, thus stifling any creative spark that the author may have originally carried.

This follows through to the fact that some subjects simply do not have three points and attempts to add in the third point come across as being ham-fisted or, what is worse, nonintellectual. The fact of the matter is that some subjects can fully be explained in only two points, while others require four or more points to develop. Adherence to the strict guidelines of the five-paragraph essay therefore result in forced attrition via the deletion of relevant data (i.e., the fourth, or higher, points) or, more commonly, forced inflation via the insertion of a third point that stands out like a hippie in a Presbyterian church.

It is inevitable that five-paragraph essays are used by school administrations, therefore, simply to force adherence to dictatorial norms. No concern is given to the fact that students did not decide what these norms should be, or why their essays must be five hundred words in length, or why they must contain five paragraphs arranged in a specific manner. Obedience is demanded, like an anti-proletarian government decreeing obedience from its subjects, where any nonconformity is punished swiftly by various actions of the administration (viz., the reduction of grades, public mockery in the classroom, detention after hours, and sometimes the forced repeating of an entire year’s worth of schooling). Such tactics belong to political dictatorships, not to the realm of academia.

All of the above makes it quite obvious that the five-paragraph essay format is prone to abuse and should be abolished as soon as humanly possible. It is time to evolve. Indeed, there is nothing that is stated in a five paragraph essay that could not be stated without stifling creativity, rigid adherence to three points, or the use of dictatorial tactics.