Jersey Girl, here's what I think GoodK is getting at and why his opinion, although it contrasts with your own, remains valid:
Which is better: To read one hundred books and be wholly unable to analyze and incorporate the information, or to read only ten books and be fully able to analyze and incorporate the information?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
A good point Shades. Well, let's see JustMe put his money where his mouth is with all his book learning, and take the exam?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Dr. Shades wrote:Which is better: To read one hundred books and be wholly unable to analyze and incorporate the information, or to read only ten books and be fully able to analyze and incorporate the information?
Don't forget the people who've read ten books -- or fewer -- and are wholly unable to analyze and incorporate even that information.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Don't forget the people who've read ten books -- or fewer -- and are wholly unable to analyze and incorporate even that information.
Sad, but quite obviously true.
Okay, I won't forget them.
But my point still holds true: Just because you read a lot of books doesn't mean you understand what you've read.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"