Philosophy Now Forum

rantal wrote:Incorrect, I fully understand your text, it is of no value

all the best, rantal

Please, you don't understand shit, my friend!

rantal wrote:From you, that means nothing

all the best, urban

The following recent email is from Dr. James Tabor, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989:

Re: "The Ouzo Prophecy" in reference to the book of Revelation
Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:02 PM
From: "Tabor, James"
To: "bob evenson"
Can't make any sense of it. Thanks.
James Tabor

Wow, your understanding of "The Ouzo Prophecy" makes Prof. Tabor look like he should be in another profession, doesn't it?

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:From you, that means nothing

all the best, urban

The following recent email is from Dr. James Tabor, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989:

Re: "The Ouzo Prophecy" in reference to the book of Revelation
Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:02 PM
From: "Tabor, James"
To: "bob evenson"
Can't make any sense of it. Thanks.
James Tabor

Wow, your understanding of "The Ouzo Prophecy" makes Prof. Tabor look like he should be in another profession, doesn't it?

Tabor is sparing your embarrasment, he, no doubt, recieves many texts from cranks, and rather than telling them outright that their text is utter nonsense he spares their embarrasment by saying he can't make sense of it. His answer is true but incomplete.

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:Bob, learn some history, originally the Arabs agreed to divide the area into two states, including that land that had been purchased from Arabs and the Ottomans by Jews. One part was to remain Arab the other Israeli. The Arabs then renaged on this deal, greedily insisting that all the land must be Arab. Prior to British control the land was under the control of the Ottomans.

I think you lack the most important piece of history: it's made by pompous old men with pencils claiming to represent anybody they can be fooled for representing. It's not "Arabs versus Israeli", it's some idiots versus some other idiots while other people stands on the sideline helpless to actually be represented.

The Voice of Time wrote:

rantal wrote:Bob, learn some history, originally the Arabs agreed to divide the area into two states, including that land that had been purchased from Arabs and the Ottomans by Jews. One part was to remain Arab the other Israeli. The Arabs then renaged on this deal, greedily insisting that all the land must be Arab. Prior to British control the land was under the control of the Ottomans.

I think you lack the most important piece of history: it's made by pompous old men with pencils claiming to represent anybody they can be fooled for representing. It's not "Arabs versus Israeli", it's some idiots versus some other idiots while other people stands on the sideline helpless to actually be represented.

That is indeed true

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:From you, that means nothing

all the best, urban

The following recent email is from Dr. James Tabor, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, where he has taught since 1989:

Re: "The Ouzo Prophecy" in reference to the book of Revelation
Wednesday, January 2, 2013 3:02 PM
From: "Tabor, James"
To: "bob evenson"
Can't make any sense of it. Thanks.
James Tabor

Wow, your understanding of "The Ouzo Prophecy" makes Prof. Tabor look like he should be in another profession, doesn't it?

Tabor is sparing your embarrasment, he, no doubt, recieves many texts from cranks, and rather than telling them outright that their text is utter nonsense he spares their embarrasment by saying he can't make sense of it. His answer is true but incomplete.

all the best, rantal

You don't speak for Prof. Tabor, my friend. He doesn't have the slightest idea of what the "The Ouzo Prophecy" is about, but he admits it, and doesn't try to politely dismiss it. A professor of English at Writer's Digest, who earlier critiqued it said, "I read your paper, reread it, and then read it again. The average person wouldn't know what you're talking about, what the point is, what you're trying to say." He ended by saying, "Your paper is something, but it's only something, and I reluctantly confess, I'm not at all certain what that something is." And please, don't suggest that the spokesman for the Spiritual Counterfeits Project was just trying to be polite when he said, "What can I say? Your argument is fascinating, tightly reasoned, for sure. But I have to wonder, is it true?"

rantal wrote:That's another person being tactful Bob.

Have you ever had a Rorschach Psychodiagnostic Test?

rantal wrote:I might have guessed you were a believer in psychoquackery

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess the Thematic Apperception Test would be more up your alley.

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:I might have guessed you were a believer in psychoquackery

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess the Thematic Apperception Test would be more up your alley.

No Bob, I don't believe in any of your psychoquackery

all the best, rantal

rantal wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

rantal wrote:I might have guessed you were a believer in psychoquackery

Oh, I'm sorry, I guess the Thematic Apperception Test would be more up your alley.

No Bob, I don't believe in any of your psychoquackery

all the best, rantal

Oh, I guess you feel that psychology itself is psychoquackery since both tests have been staples of its practioners for a great many years.

rantal wrote:Yes!

I guess you're a Scientologist and a fan of John Travolta and Tom Cruise, huh?