His Excellency MoebiusLord wrote:
yossarian wrote:
Uh...the whole thing is a religious reference. I think you are paranoid, and for that I am deeply sorry.
Actually, it isn't. It's a story relating to a religious topic. Nuance is a *****.
Distinction without a difference.
moe wrote:
yossarian wrote:
Go back and read the original post. Nothing in the article which he could conceivably cut out contradicts his only premise which was that Panda Lee is an awesome name.
Again, I think you woke up on the side of the bed your brain chose to vacate today. His only comment was that Panda Lee is an awesome name. That doesn't even begin to suggest that it was the sole premise of the post.
Re-read the initial post. We can look at his later posts and discern an agenda, but I find the initial post un-biased. I could argue that if he *had* included the last two paragraphs of the story, it would lessen the impact because they invoke magical realism to back up apparently factual events - not a winning combination for many of us.
I might read the article, sans last two paragraphs as: well, there is this ancient story about an ark. Turns out, it may well have a basis in fact.
But including the final two paragraphs it becomes more like: GOD SAYS THERE WAS AN ARK. WE JUST FOUND IT.
Which I don't believe for an instant. Thus I could omit the final two paragraphs to make this a more lively discussion, doing what I think will include more nonbelievers.
