'Inherit The Wind':
A 'Reconstruction'!?
Andy Bradbury
From: "Andy Bradbury"
To: "Positive Atheism" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
Subject: PA-via_Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 9:17 PM
I note that, in your discussion of the Scopes Trial, you refer to the play/film "Inherit the Wind" as a "reconstruction" of the trial.
In what sense, I wonder, are you using the word "reconstruction"?
There are numerous sites around the web that explain at greattttttttt length the multitude of ways in which the script differs from the event. Even the authors have stated -- in the preface to the published script -- that it is not historically accurate and that they drew very little upon the original trial.
So what, I wonder, is an organisation apparently dedicated to rationalism and "truth" doing hyping a fictional account as fact?
Just wondering 8¬)
From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To:
Subject: Re: PA-via_Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 11:25 PM
I note that, in your discussion of the Scopes Trial, you refer to the play/film "Inherit the Wind" as a "reconstruction" of the trial.
You'd have to point to the file in question; I cannot find this language using any of our search engines, either local or on-site. I searched for and checked every occurence of the strings "inherit the wind" and "reconstruction."
So, I cannot respond to something when I don't know who wrote it or what it was saying (you do not provide a direct quotation, but merely your own summary of what you think it said). And if someone else said something like this, then only that person can respond to your charges, or explain to you what she or he meant with the word reconstruction.
I do know that I haven't seen the movie nor was I at the trial. We have transcripts of the trial, and I've heard that the film takes a few liberties: I don't care enough about the movie to spend my time going over the details about how it differs from what we know. I also don't believe everything I read on the Web, especially when they're discussing a subject about which I know very little (movies).
But if you can show that this language is on our website, I'll respond to its being posted. And if you can show that I wrote it (I don't think I did; I seldom if ever speculate on matters about which I know little -- such as movies), then I'll respond according to what I meant to say, not what you tell me I said.
Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
people with no reason to believe
Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.