To: Free ThinkerNY
PC makes it to museums...Nat Geo mag is doomed
2 posted on
05/21/2008 12:20:14 PM PDT by
CGASMIA68
To: Free ThinkerNY
To: Free ThinkerNY
They must have heard Bill Clinton was on his way for a visit.
4 posted on
05/21/2008 12:21:26 PM PDT by
reagan_fanatic
(Average White Conservative)
To: Free ThinkerNY
I didn’t know John Ashcroft was a Egyptologist.
5 posted on
05/21/2008 12:23:33 PM PDT by
Unlikely Hero
("Time is a wonderful teacher; unfortunately, it kills all its pupils." --Berlioz)
To: Free ThinkerNY
I don't know about the visitors, but personally I wouldn't want my scrawny, unclothed, rotten body permanently exposed in a museum for tourists to see for a hundred years or more. Respecting the interests of the scientists and public is all well and good, but what about the dead guy?
Sorry, had to play devil's advocate ;).
To: Free ThinkerNY
Not nearly as horrid as our very own Smithsonian refusing an exhibit extolling the American Dream offeredas a gift to the museum by very wealthy self-made people. Smithie is big on slavery exhibits though.
7 posted on
05/21/2008 12:30:55 PM PDT by
Veto!
(Opinions freely dispensed as advice)
To: Free ThinkerNY
IIRC, the ancient Egyptians were quite comfortable with nudity and diaphanous clothing.
9 posted on
05/21/2008 12:35:40 PM PDT by
colorado tanker
(Number nine, number nine, number nine . . .)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Oooh, baby, I just loved dried up 2700 year old husks. Mmmm...mmmm.
10 posted on
05/21/2008 12:39:25 PM PDT by
Malsua
To: Free ThinkerNY
Then they’d better start covering up the various bog bodies in museums, and Otzi, the iceman.
13 posted on
05/21/2008 12:48:15 PM PDT by
mass55th
To: Free ThinkerNY
Darn, just when they were ready for the June “Dead Mummy Lovers” centerfold.
21 posted on
05/21/2008 1:21:15 PM PDT by
BlueStateBlues
(Blue State for business, Red State at heart..)
To: Free ThinkerNY
Well, I guess the upside of this is that more museums are going to be able to afford a mummy exhibit. I mean, an old manequin, a bed sheet to cover it, and a sign that says “MUMMY” is considerably less expensive than a 2,700 relic that has to be concealed, anyway.
22 posted on
05/21/2008 1:51:39 PM PDT by
philled
("I prefer messy democracy to the stability of tyrants." -- Howar Ziad, Iraqi Ambassador to Canada)
To: Free ThinkerNY
The deceased were never ASKED if they wanted to be put on public display for money naked.
It isn’t always about prudes. It can also be able showing disrespect for a corpse.
23 posted on
05/21/2008 2:05:46 PM PDT by
weegee
(We cant keep our homes on 72 at all times & just expect that other countries are going to say OK -BO)
To: Free ThinkerNY
There is no need to display the mummies nude. What is the point?
I was incensed enough when long deceased relatives of mine were pried from their coffins beneath the floor of the Chapel at St. Mary's City, MD and shown naked on TV. My mother was horrified.
A little decency goes a long way, and it is not necessary to show the parts of a human corpse on display, (be it media or in a glass case), we would not want to show ourselves walking down the street.
29 posted on
05/21/2008 8:02:37 PM PDT by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson