4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + + + + + +
This article is unfair and unbalanced
I mean ok, so Dan Brown is an idiot whose idea of research seems to be googling and then taking whatever the top few websites say. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Do we really need to spend 3 pages debunking him? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)
I mean ok, so Dan Brown is an idiot whose idea of research seems to be googling and then taking whatever the top few websites say. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Do we really need to spend 3 pages debunking him? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:50, 1 March 2007 (EST)
== This article is unfair and unbalanced ==
Should be shortened (a lot). This article is not only a long one-sided monologue, it's also a dishonest one: no mention of the objections of Langdon to the Teabing’s theories for example. Do you really think that Dan Brown want you to believe that there is a secret sarcophagi under a small pyramid in the Louvre museum?
Stop the finger pointing game. Don Brown is not “responsible for feeding millions of pack reader with lies…”. Its novel is in fact an unhoped-for chance: millions of people have reopened their history books. A good opportunity to remember that 2000 years ago, one could say about Christians “See as they love one another”.
Does this group still alive today? If you think that a mere novel is a treat, the problem is not the Da Vincy Code.