🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 20:36:47 +1000, "|-|ercules"
<radgray123@yahoo.com> wrote:

>"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote...
>> 
>> "|-|ercules" <radgray...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> www.popetoyou.com
>> 
>> Why would you put private videos on your web page,
>> and then invite people to view them when you know
>> they can't?
>> 
>> Your "Are Genesis Adam & Eve Alive Today?" video
>> is private.
>> 
>> Secondly, your videos appear to have been taped in
>> bed. Is there any reason for that which isn't incredibly
>> gross?
>> 
>> Finally:  Is there a formal... um... some sort of "Standard"
>> for your type of book divination?
>> 
>> In particular, I'm wondering if there's anything on the type
>> of book, or where to STOP reading a passage.
>> 
>> Here's why:
>> 
>>> Is religion crazy?
>>> The Earliest Generalizations
>> 
>> Clearly a sentence fragment.
>> 
>>> Is skepticism wrong?
>>> suggest how research might be continued
>> 
>> This doesn't seem to be an answer to the question
>> at all. At best, it could be interpreted as a means
>> for ascertaining the answer.
>> 
>>> Is the need to generalize a good reason that belief in religion is sane?
>>> We cannot assume or deduce everything that is possible.
>> 
>> Nothing wrong with the answer, but does it REALLY go with
>> the question? Does anything?
>> 
>> For starters, it's a leading question (This "need to general" is
>> assumed, and you're asking us to accept it). Secondly, "Belief
>> in religion is sane" is an assumption. You're not asking it if
>> belief in religion is sane, you're asking it if this imaginary "Need
>> to generalize" is a good reason that it's sane...
>> 
>> Wait. That's still nonsense. Did you intend to declare that a
>> reason that belief in religion is sane is that there's a need to
>> generalize, and you want to know if that's a good thing or a
>> bad thing?
>> 
>> Generalize.... what?
>> 
>> Anyhow, what's the random-book-passage-divination answer to
>> gibberish like the above?
>> 
>>> We're looking for a sign (that God is true)?
>>> 1 is true
>> 
>> Could this not be interpreted as "God is one"?
>> 
>> Which leads to more questions...
>
>
>A serious post about bibliomancy!
>
>The first question is "Is this religion idea crazy?"
>
>Random Quote = "The Earliest Generalizations"
>
>Nobody accepted it was a hit, so I asked (not on site)
>
>"Is 'The Earliest Generalizations' a precise answer and the most concise answer
>to belief in religion being sane?"
>
>Random Quote = "We cannot assume or deduce everything possible".
>
>Both very targeted if you ask me, though one could argue the first answer was a bit general.

One could argue that sane people would find both answers to be random
noise, and you're just engaging in typical schizophrenic
free-association.