On Thu, 29 Jan 2015 10:04:03 -0600, TreeSaver <Enjoy!@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jan 2015 10:17:07 -0500, Boyo@the.pub wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 19:28:25 -0600, TreeSaver <Enjoy!@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 14:09:18 -0500, Boyo@the.pub wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 11:35:34 -0600, TreeSaver <Enjoy!@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:19:08 -0500, Boyo@the.pub wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Uncensored? WTF? Strange as it seems for a pastoralist sci-fi writer
>>>>>>Like Simak a sub-plot involving a Christian group seeking to block
>>>>>>access to the time of Jesus had been hacked entirely from the edition
>>>>>>that this was scanned from. That was NOT the Del Ray edition used for
>>>>>>the cover and title page as that edition was used to restore the
>>>>>>missing text. I felt it offensive that some editor at some point after
>>>>>>the books initial publication felt free to remove sections of text he
>>>>>>found offensive.
>>>>>
>>>>>How would I know if it was censored or not? Give me some example and I
>>>>>will check the copys I have.
>>>>>
>>>>>TreeSaver
>>>>
>>>>Most but not all of it is in chapter 26. The full text version ends
>>>>the chapter with "I had a gone feeling in my guts." The edited version
>>>>removes all references to religion and in the one instance it didn't,
>>>>chapter 23, replaced Jesus with Mohammud.
>>>
>>>You are right. Someone posted this in another group. Here you go.
>>>Enjoy!
>>>
>>>TreeSaver
>>
>>Little confusion here. It was me that posted it. The text post was to
>>explain why it was labeled as "Uncensored".
>
>Sorry, I guess I had one of those senior moments.
>
>TreeSaver
Considering the workload you shoulder around here the occasional
misread is hardly sign of losing a step.
|
|