Yahoo quote: "The supreme reality of our time is the vulnerability of this planet."
Actual quote: "The supreme reality of our time is our indivisibility as children of God and our common vulnerability on this planet."
Pathetic, isn't it?
2007-07-27 03:07:47 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
to avail_skillz: You obviously didn't read the two quotes closely... Not only did they leave out the first part, which isn't that big of a deal, they CHANGED the second part. "The supreme reality of our time is ... OUR common vulnerability ON this planet," not "The supreme reality of our time is ... THE vulnerability OF this planet." Pathetic that someone who appears trained in communication can't read a simple question and its details. Please try again.
And no, had they quoted just the first part of Kennedy's quote, I would not have thought it pathetic (unless they had changed the words and thus the meaning of the quote).
Actual quote: "The supreme reality of our time is our indivisibility as children of God and our common vulnerability on this planet."
2007-07-27 04:27:05 · update #1
THEY did not do their home work, you did, thanks.
2007-07-27 03:24:51 · answer #1 · answered by kim t 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well the original quote would make a person appear religiously biased would it not?
If you take a communication class, you will notice that it is acceptible to quote only the portion of the quote that fits your presentation, as long as you aren't twisting the overall meaning of the quote. In most articles, they would present it like this:
"The supreme reality of our time is .....common vulnerability on this planet."
But when in graphics art, you usually leave out the ".....", because it doesn't look particularly appealing, and link the two portions with another word to preserve cohesion.
If the audience would have been primarily Christians, they would have cut it short. Would you have still thought it pathetic if it appeared as:
"The supreme reality of our time is our indivisibility as children of God."
so no, it isn't pathetic.
what is pathetic, is that you worried about it.
2007-07-27 10:19:27 · answer #2 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They would never attribute a mention of God to Kennedy and the new "quote" better fits their political views.
2007-07-27 10:14:42 · answer #3 · answered by Brian 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm just sad the there wasn't time for the 'conservatives' to kill all the trees, pollute all the rivers, and kill off all the animals before environmental awareness kicked in.
2007-07-27 10:13:05 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The Green section is filled with mostly libs. You know they distort things to their own advantage. This should not surprise you in the least.
2007-07-27 10:10:16 · answer #5 · answered by Still Beautifully Conservative 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
You should write to editorial staff of yahoo and correct them!
2007-07-27 10:15:19 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
no Republican to talk about
2007-07-27 10:12:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋