Monday, December 20, 2004
-posted by X-er at 6:51 PM
Humm, I seem to remember taking the CA Bar Exam at that very conference center - although I don't remember that statute. Guess my mind was on other things that week.
I think that by clothing the statue, they brought a lot more attention to it than it would have received otherwise. I was there that week and when I think of the conference, that's about the only thing I can remember.
You mean people are actually naked under the blue and white suits and dresses? Wow.. God had a vision when he brought me to this site. I thought they were some hunk of metal robot... who knew!(Brings back memories of arguing with a certain librarian staffer at Indy on the whole clothes thing. He argued that he didn't want to defraud his wife so he would definitely be wearing very heavy clothes to bed every night after he was married)
> he didn't want to defraud his wife so he would definitely be wearing very heavy clothes to bedk, something is just entirely SICK about this
Hey the lady quoted in the article, Susan Pellascio, is my mom.... I totally cracked up when I first read this in the newspaper 4 years ago.... yeah I remember the naked statue from when we went to Basic & Advanced seminars there, but I think MOM was the one embarrased, not me or my sisters. Sigh. (I was like 12 or 13 at the time, so clearly I wasn't going to be asking "mommy what's that" for crying out loud!!)Jessica (Pellascio) Bischof
Jessica, Please be assured that I in no way was attempting to mock your mother....in general the story seemed very funny, especially the scene about the downtown workers struggling to pull the statue's pants down. Certainly the controversy brought more attention to the statute that it would have ever received if he had been left in his natural state. I am happy to hear you safely survived the exposure to Poseidon.X-er
Hah! I totally remember them dressing him up and the reporters and controversy and all. That was nuts! Yea, overtly adamant and maybe overboard, but a fun solution. But I must say that the clothing was better than the table cloths that he was dressed in during some of the Basic Seminar's of the early 90's. Definitely better. I just feel for the poor souls who had to measure him.And Pellascio's statement was a good soundbite that drew on the emotions if nothing else. After all, it's for the children right?
Children are actually not embarrassed and not likely to think anything out of the ordinary. They might think, "I wonder if I will look that someday," or "That's what daddy would look like without clothes." But they are not lusting.... It is likely their parents who if they have fallen prey to every IBLP teaching without balance that are undersexed and struggling with issues of the heart. Throw in a complete lack of understanding between art and pornography and these folks are in a dither.
Jim Voeller's name had to show up in such an article! Ouch!Anyway, yes, does everyone remember Conan the Librarian at Indy?! He was great fun! :)
Isn't Voeller the guy that ran off with his secretary and abandoned his wife and kids. Well, he can't be such a bad guy if he was that concerned about protecting the virgin eyes of all those little ATI brats from nude statue.
*eyeball roll*My goodness. Maybe things are easier because we have all boys, but we've had -no- problems with weird questions or whatever these people were afraid of when our kiddos have been exposed to nudity in art.Now, if Poseidon's private areas were, ummm, portrayed in a moment of stimulation--then it would probably be a lot more comfortable to have a fig leaf or toga covering things. But none of the classical sculptures I've seen have gone into that much detail.(Actually, now that I think about it, the classical sculputures I've seen tended to minimize private areas--or at least, the models for the sculptures were a bit underdeveloped or androgynous.)
somebody said this: -he didn't want to defraud his wife so he would definitely be wearing very heavy clothes to bed every night after he was married- well, I wonder if that's who I think it is! i wonder - LOL
HA HA HA HA I'm the one who actually made/altered the clothes to fit him. Thought it was a blast and a great joke. Besides...who needs a 7' tall bronze guy (with privates to match...they weren't minimized in ANY way, just nicely, *obviously* displayed) right outside the glass walls of the hall used for Pre-EXCEL? Sorry, but I wouldn't have wanted one of my little sisters being exposed to that, much less require her to sit for a week staring at it. It was a rather entertaining event though. Must say that the responses of those walking past and seeing the dresses statue were priceless...
I know this is an old post, but I have to say, I was there when all this happened. I remember the press, the uproar and the behind the hand titters from those of us that thought that the whole situation was just funny. But then again, I did develope the repuation of being rather evil. I dont know how many times I got chided that year, (and years previous) for spending too much time with members of the opposite sex, even though it was well known that the people I was with were my neighbors, my friends and my ride to the seminars. And old friends still in ATI wonder why I am glad I left....
The real issue is do you believe God and will you obey him? The Bible is clear "don't uncover nakedness." Period. It's your choice whether to believe what God said, and whether or not you are going to obey. Those that want to uncover genetalia are disobeying God not man, those that want to cover up genetalia are obeying God. The reason people get so riled up when you try to cover up nakedness is because it reveals their deeds for what they are, darkness, and darkness hates the light and tries to extinguish it.God loves you and so do I.
Post a Comment
Subscribe toPosts [Atom]