🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3434fc19....@news.pacificnet.net>,
Kevin D. Quitt <Ke...@Quitt.net> wrote:

[responding to others who were responding to me]

>Your last comment is correct, but you have the rest of it backwards.  They
>don't need an infinite amount of time or an infinite number of monkeys.
>But given infinite time, you *will* get Shakespeare.  You might get it
>next week, or in 10^14 years, or in a really, really long time.  Given an
>infinite number of monkeys, you'll have your Shakespeare in the day or
>week it takes of the monkeys to type it.  You'll also have an infinite
>number of copies that each have one of the letters wrong, and two, etc.
>
>
>>At any rate the Torah is far from infinite,
>>so, except for the last sentence, I think this last paragraph doesn't
>>apply at all.
>
>Good.  I was nit-picking, anyway.

In fact, that is the overall reason I decided not to bother replying
the first go-round.

The *truly* critical point is that similar sorts of "codes" can be
generated from a wide variety of other texts. So the question to codes
quacks is "If we demonstrate the same 'codes' in Moby Dick, are you
going to assert some divine quality to that work?" To the Jewish
fundamentalists: "If we look at the Christian Bible and discover lots
of 'codes' (with and/or without vowels) in *that* text, will you
suddently concede the divine nature of those books?" To Christians:
"If the Book of Mormon contains similar 'codes', will you be adopting
it in addition to your Scripture any time soon?" How about the Kama
Sutra?

I'd ask what it would take to make this nonsense go away, but as a
ten year veteran of UseNet, I sadly know the answer to that question.
I might even make a prophesy.

-- 
-----------------------
Jack F. Love
Opinions expressed are mine alone, unless you happen to agree