I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Please help me clarify your comments if I am misunderstanding them.
You are saying that since you have written some books you are in a position to generalize about all books and all readers of books. And that books have limited value for gaining knowledge because humans are unable to read a book without projecting their own ideas, experiences, and biases onto what they have read and want to "show off" to other people that they read books rather than understand the book and what the writer is saying.
As I said, I'm always amazed by the ability to re-interprete. You just delivered a nice example. From the general note, that there is an effect of re-interpretation, you try to re-interprete what I have said, by twisting words and inserting your bias. Therefore, let it make clear, I never said, books have limited worth in gaining knowledge. Bending the written word to fulfill your imaginations though, maybe has limited worth. And to make the next point also clear: Normally, even when there is some re-interpretation, it is not generally a bad thing. Comparison of own experiences and of what I read help always to get a clearer picture. The mistake is the goal-oriented re-interpretation with the sole purpose to commit slander against the writer or persons in any connection against a book.
Between WWI and WWII there was a new movement in society to follow Christian principles (as opposed to historic periods before World War I? )
There were other periods in history too, but I thought, it was self-understanding, since Truthspider's post was connected to a book that dealt with WWII and was published after said war.
During this period there was a new art movement called "renewal style" that expressed Christian ideas through the experience of fighting in WWII?
If you would read instead to re-interprete, you would maybe discover, that I wrote "After the wars (after WWI as after WWII)". Translation, this movement popped up two times.
Truthspider has been trying to pin the Long Island serial murders on Hackett and all of us basically know that SG was not murdered and was not connected to any other murders on Long Island. You have coined a term "LISK2" on the theory that there are two serial killers running around Long Island and Ttuthspider has the two serial killers mixed up.
In fact, LISK1 or the one, who got the name "Long Island Killer first by the media was Joel Rifkin. Joel Rifkin, however, has nothing to do with the actual cases. He is in prison since 18 years.
LISK2 is, the one who dropped four bodies at Gilgo Beach. He is organized and almost panic free zone.
SG was dropped by someone, who was stupid enough to leave evidence near to the body.
Manorville had a dismemberer who dropped also body parts around on LI.
So, if you think about it, either you say, SG is unconnected to LISK2 or LISK2 is just a bloody moron, who has not the faintest idea about how to kill people and drop their bodies without leaving evidence behind. What shall it be?
And Manorville is a dismemberer, who staged at least one time a torso (Jessica Taylor). He obviously also kept body parts for years, indicating they have an inherent souvenir value for him. This indicates an entirely different psychopathology. Unless of course, you tell me now, it's one killer, who has an unknown number of personalities not knowing about each other and two of them are SKs with entirely different signatures.
The main problem that people are having is there are some "self-proclaimed experts" who claim two serial killers operating at the same time in the same area is very rare so Hackett is probably responsible for all the murders. When in fact real experts know it is rather common to have two or more serial killers working and burying bodies in the same location at the same time.
Not "real experts", just people who can read. And if you're one of those, I suggest to read up the Hillside Strangler case (with Charlie Manson and Alcala killing right in the neighborhood), Jack the Ripper (with the London Torso II, Cream and Koslowski right in the neighborhood), the Grim Sleeper, Anthony Sowell, Ted Bundy, Richard Lake and Charles Ng. All of them had other serial killers in the same area at the same time. Or look in WS for the I-45 murders, that's a neverending story of serial killers walking over each other's feet. Fact is, that in most cases, I have seen and researched, there was at least one more in the area. They are not that rare. So, ignore the facts or read, but don't try to twist words I wrote.
Have I basically understood your comments?
[/QUOTE]
Nope, you have basically understood zilch, but you re-interpreted everything.
P.S. Since you seem to know a lot about books and publishing, I may ask since when and with how many books you are published?
