Comments on: BTB Original Investigation: The True Story of George Rekers And “Kraig”

By: check this

check this — Sun, 06 May 2012 12:49:10 +0000

I will immediately grab your rss as I can not to find your email subscription link
or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Please permit me recognise
in order that I may just subscribe. Thanks.

By: Helen Hill MFT

Helen Hill MFT — Sat, 11 Jun 2011 00:23:02 +0000

Thank you for publicizing this invasive, and horrible practice of “reparative” therapy. It needs to stop. No reputable therapist should do this to any child, regardless of their orientation or gender.

It is horrible and is a huge violation of the person. I wonder sometimes if “rape” would be too strong a word?

Thank you again.

Helen Hill MFT

By: Timothy Kincaid

Timothy Kincaid — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 17:50:02 +0000

I’m with Jim. In the midst of discussion about the tragedy caused by irresponsible activism-based “research”, you’re arguing over whether “literally” can be used in some way or other. Why?

Why was it even “corrected” in the first place?

Maybe rather than “being right” and making sure that others know that they are using a word incorrectly, we can put our focus on the fact that a life was destroyed, a family was torn apart, and an entire anti-gay industry was bolstered out of one man’s desire to create a “scientific” basis for the war he was waging against his own personal unhappiness.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 16:32:14 +0000

Okay folks. This is not a post about linguistics. Let’s take this trivial argument elsewhere. Sheesh!

By: Timothy (TRiG)

Timothy (TRiG) — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:49:03 +0000

some dictionaries report on how a word is used

Any dictionary which does otherwise is not useful. The English language is defined by its speakers. I, personally, would not use the word literally in this fashion, but language changes.

Read some linguistics textbooks. They’re interesting.

TRiG.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:37:07 +0000

Priya,

Really? This is what you think is so important that it merits a three-day back and forth argument over?

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:31:58 +0000

And Desiree, two of your definitions agree with me, not you. Merriam Webster gives a second meaning as “In effect, virtually”. To say “my blood virtually boiled” is obviously not the case. The second dictionary you gave mentioned the “intensifier” usage but said it is a PROBLEM. Most dictionaries recognize that literally means “actually happned” and that saying “my blood was literally boiling” is stupid.

By: Priya Lynn

Priya Lynn — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 15:27:25 +0000

Desiree some dictionaries report on how a word is used, not what usage is correct or logical. That the non-literal definition of literally is wrong is seen in the second definition Andrew gave “Used to acknowledge that something is not literally true”.

That second “defintion” acknowledges that literally means “actually happened” and points out the illogic of saying “literally means not literally”. When people start using the word literally when its clear they are exagerating it becomes impossible to use an unambiguous way to say “I’m not exagerating” as using it in exagerattions calls into question every time it is used and suggests the person is exagerrating when they are not.

Using literally when one doesn’t mean literally is childish, ignorant, incorrect, and illogical.

By: Marlene

Marlene — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:54:18 +0000

It’s a long shot, but are there any links to this perverted “therapy” by Green, ad nauseum and the perversions imposed on Bruce Reimer by John Money at Johns Hopkins?

There’s alot of similarities between these two cases, including sexual abuse and suicide.

By: Désirée

Désirée — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:08:47 +0000

@Priya
let it go. you’re wrong.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/literally
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
http://dictionary.sensagent.com/literally/en-en/
all of those definitions include some form of “literally as intensifier” definition as well as some form of this:
—Usage note
Since the early 20th century, literally has been widely used as an intensifier meaning “in effect, virtually,” a sense that contradicts the earlier meaning “actually, without exaggeration”: The senator was literally buried alive in the Iowa primaries. The parties were literally trading horses in an effort to reach a compromise. The use is often criticized; nevertheless, it appears in all but the most carefully edited writing. Although this use of literally irritates some, it probably neither distorts nor enhances the intended meaning of the sentences in which it occurs. The same might often be said of the use of literally in its earlier sense “actually”: The garrison was literally wiped out: no one survived.