Quote:
Originally Posted by Indy Coug
|
Rather than make us investigate your earlier writings, fascinating though they may be, and given that you are here, why don't you just take a position now and avoid ambiguity. Do you believe it is literal or not?
I ask this because I was gone for a few days and have not kept up on all threads and would rather not have to go back and plow through them, especially for a question such as this. In this thread you keep sidestepping by making qualified or indeterminate statements, such as "not primarily for scientific purposes" or challenging us to show where you claimed it was literal, leaving open the chance that you still might. Btw, if you're not sure that's OK too. But quite honestly, I don't really care enough about your particular opinion to ferret this out and think that the sideshow you're creating about it detracts from your original query, which is a good one. IMO.