Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote:

bobevenson wrote:One can disagree with "The Ouzo Prophecy," but Ken and the rest of you don't have an inkling of what it's about, so you're all just shadow boxing.

And how does that matter? How does "knowing it" make you or your experience any better than anyone else's experience?

What I'm saying is that if you don't understand a paper, it's pointless to comment. It's like making some stupid remark about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (and yes, "The Ouzo Prophecy" is in the same intellectual league, spiritual versus scientific).

bobevenson wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

bobevenson wrote:One can disagree with "The Ouzo Prophecy," but Ken and the rest of you don't have an inkling of what it's about, so you're all just shadow boxing.

And how does that matter? How does "knowing it" make you or your experience any better than anyone else's experience?

What I'm saying is that if you don't understand a paper, it's pointless to comment. It's like making some stupid remark about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (and yes, "The Ouzo Prophecy" is in the same intellectual league, spiritual versus scientific).

So why is it pointless for you to comment about the foundational paper for your entire platform, yet you are willing to go on and on "lighting the lamps of truth even if all is for naught" to defend your own credibility? Why is your recognition more important (and more of the focus) than the message?

Lacewing wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Lacewing wrote: And how does that matter? How does "knowing it" make you or your experience any better than anyone else's experience?

What I'm saying is that if you don't understand a paper, it's pointless to comment. It's like making some stupid remark about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (and yes, "The Ouzo Prophecy" is in the same intellectual league, spiritual versus scientific).

So why is it pointless for you to comment about the foundational paper for your entire platform, yet you are willing to go on and on "lighting the lights of spiritual truth even when it is all for naught" to defend your own credibility? Why is your recognition more important (and more of the focus) than the message?

I understand the message, and the spokesman for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project understands the message, and as a divinely inspired prophet, I will just keep focusing on the message until the rest of the world understands it.

bobevenson wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

bobevenson wrote: What I'm saying is that if you don't understand a paper, it's pointless to comment. It's like making some stupid remark about Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (and yes, "The Ouzo Prophecy" is in the same intellectual league, spiritual versus scientific).

So why is it pointless for you to comment about the foundational paper for your entire platform, yet you are willing to go on and on "lighting the lights of spiritual truth even when it is all for naught" to defend your own credibility? Why is your recognition more important (and more of the focus) than the message?

I understand the message, and the spokesman for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project understands the message, and as a divinely inspired prophet, I will just keep focusing on the message until the rest of the world understands it.

Whoa, Bob! Just focus on your own needs for now. One step at a time.

bobevenson wrote:Hey, like John on the isle of Patmos, I'm just the messenger.

By "messenger" do you mean "delivery boy" -- since you're not actually able or willing to comment on the paper, answer questions, or help people to understand it? You're not really helping spread the message at all then, right? You're just littering.

bobevenson wrote:I can answer any and all questions on the book of Revelation and "The Ouzo Prophecy."

Then why haven't you? You just point to some regurgitated description that you've said over and over. That's not answering questions.

bobevenson wrote:Now I ask you, are you afraid to check it out?

I already checked it out as much as I was willing to spend my time on it. There was nothing compelling, including your presentation of it.

Since you say you're willing to answer questions, here's one: What difference does it make whether anyone believes this stuff or not? Believing it hasn't resulted in anything significantly improved about your experience, has it?

bobevenson wrote:If you say you checked out the gematria of the seven churches, I surmise you agree with my findings, and if so, how do you explain how one could possibly gain this knowledge since it is quite problematic from a probability standpoint.

You didn't answer my question(s).

Lacewing wrote:

bobevenson wrote:If you say you checked out the gematria of the seven churches, I surmise you agree with my findings, and if so, how do you explain how one could possibly gain this knowledge since it is quite problematic from a probability standpoint.

You didn't answer my question(s).

I already checked it out as much as I was willing to spend my time on it.

Please, what the fuck does that mean?

Here are the questions you haven't answered:

lacewing wrote:Since you say you're willing to answer questions, here's one: What difference does it make whether anyone believes this stuff or not? Believing it hasn't resulted in anything significantly improved about your experience, has it?

Lacewing wrote:Here are the questions you haven't answered: Since you say you're willing to answer questions, here's one: What difference does it make whether anyone believes this stuff or not? Believing it hasn't resulted in anything significantly improved about your experience, has it?

Jesus Christ, I'm more than happy to answer legitimate questions, but not that kind of bullshit!

bobevenson wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Here are the questions you haven't answered: Since you say you're willing to answer questions, here's one: What difference does it make whether anyone believes this stuff or not? Believing it hasn't resulted in anything significantly improved about your experience, has it?

Jesus Christ, I'm more than happy to answer legitimate questions, but not that kind of bullshit!

What if your "Divine Guidance" instructs you to answer that question?

PhilX

bobevenson wrote:

Lacewing wrote:Here are the questions you haven't answered: Since you say you're willing to answer questions, here's one: What difference does it make whether anyone believes this stuff or not? Believing it hasn't resulted in anything significantly improved about your experience, has it?

Jesus Christ, I'm more than happy to answer legitimate questions, but not that kind of bullshit!

It's not bullshit, Bob -- and you are being such a liar! That's why nobody believes anything you say... in addition to the fact that what you say has demonstrated no value to anyone, not even yourself. You've failed to deliver any kind of meaningful message to anyone, and when they question you as to why that is, you curse at them.

When you can demonstrate that your beliefs actually make you a better person -- the kind of person that someone else would want to be -- THEN there might be some incentive for listening to you. Until then, interacting with you is just for entertainment, because you've got nothing else "going on".