Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
*** Since, um, forever ? That's how language evolves. Awesome used to mean what it says literally, "something that prompts awe (reverence, fear) in onlookers". "Terrible" used to mean "something that incites terror". These days, awesome means cool (heh, another example), and terrible means crap. Both meanings have evolved through countless writers and songs (not to mention "the public) progressively twisting the meaning of the original words. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it just is. Beyond that semantical digression, what the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is absolutely relevant when you want to sell them a book about him in terms they can comprehend. When the average American hears "The Da Vinci Code", they immediately understand it's a book about a secret held by that gay Yuropian who painted the ''Art/MonaLisa''. That's all that fucking matters, where publishers are concerned.
to:
*** Since, um, forever ? That's how language evolves. Awesome used to mean what it says literally, "something that prompts awe (reverence, fear) in onlookers". "Terrible" used to mean "something that incites terror". These days, awesome means cool (heh, another example), and terrible means crap. Both meanings have evolved through countless writers and songs (not to mention "the public) progressively twisting the meaning of the original words. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it just is. Beyond that semantical digression, what the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is absolutely relevant when you want to sell them a book about him in terms they can comprehend. When the average American hears "The Da Vinci Code", they immediately understand it's a book about a secret held by that gay Yuropian who painted the ''Art/MonaLisa''.''Art/TheMonaLisa''. That's all that fucking matters, where publishers are concerned.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 19 (click to see context) from:
*** Since, um, forever ? That's how language evolves. Awesome used to mean what it says literally, "something that prompts awe (reverence, fear) in onlookers". "Terrible" used to mean "something that incites terror". These days, awesome means cool (heh, another example), and terrible means crap. Both meanings have evolved through countless writers and songs (not to mention "the public) progressively twisting the meaning of the original words. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it just is. Beyond that semantical digression, what the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is absolutely relevant when you want to sell them a book about him in terms they can comprehend. When the average American hears "The Da Vinci Code", they immediately understand it's a book about a secret held by that gay Yuropian who painted the Mona Lisa. That's all that fucking matters, where publishers are concerned.
to:
*** Since, um, forever ? That's how language evolves. Awesome used to mean what it says literally, "something that prompts awe (reverence, fear) in onlookers". "Terrible" used to mean "something that incites terror". These days, awesome means cool (heh, another example), and terrible means crap. Both meanings have evolved through countless writers and songs (not to mention "the public) progressively twisting the meaning of the original words. It's neither a good thing nor a bad thing, it just is. Beyond that semantical digression, what the public does or doesn't know about Leonardo is absolutely relevant when you want to sell them a book about him in terms they can comprehend. When the average American hears "The Da Vinci Code", they immediately understand it's a book about a secret held by that gay Yuropian who painted the Mona Lisa.''Art/MonaLisa''. That's all that fucking matters, where publishers are concerned.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 41 (click to see context) from:
* First, a quick disclaimer for anyone who only seen the movie, so this may be better explained in the book. Alright, so everyone on both sides of the conflict seem to assume that if you have both the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene and the Heir, you could use a DNA test to prove that Jesus Christ sired descendants. But it can be seen no less than four major reasons why that wouldn't work:
to:
* First, a quick disclaimer for anyone who only seen the movie, so disclaimer: this is based on the movie and may be better explained in the book. Alright, so everyone on both sides of the conflict seem to assume that if you have both the sarcophagus of Mary Magdalene and the Heir, you could use a DNA test to prove that Jesus Christ sired descendants. But it can be seen there are no less than four major reasons why that wouldn't work:
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Everyone chill, it's a case of AluminumChristmasTrees. Leonardo's surname ''was'' "Da Vinci": his family (on his father's side) held the name for more than a century before Leonardo was born and even had a coat of arms. Of course, in this case the surname sprung from the place of residence, so it goes both ways.
