« the fashion industry self-policing on models' weight? one can only hope | Main | i have to admit it . . . i'd try it »

December 11, 2006



So, let me see if I understand his position:

1. It is preposterous to believe that Thomas Nelson would require their authors to adhere to the Nicene Creed or Philippians 4:8

2. But as a company they adhere to those standards

3. And they "align themselves with (translation: publish) people who share our vision, mission and values." Oh yeah, and they can prove it is important not to publish those they don't agree with through the use of an obscure Old Testament reference.

4. And, as long as you meet "these standards," you have tremendous latitude to produce something for Thomas Nelson ... as long as it is in keeping with Philippians 4:8

Did I miss something?


For clarification, I am not suggesting that Thomas Nelson doesn't have complete latitude; they are a private company and can publish whatever they wish. My comment above was only to point out the bizarre, Orwellian manner with which Michael Hyatt answered the question.

Dave L

My favorite part is that all these "articles" emerged because of a Nelson press release announcing essentially what the release reported.

It's like Charles Barkley arguing that he was misquoted in his own autobiography.

The comments to this entry are closed.