The question is, are they claiming the _reverse_? It'd be somewhat surprising if they weren't, actually, even (especially?) were it untrue. But granted, it does seem to be the case that they're post-GL, whatever they choose to say. Nick's theory about the "origin" of the IG creates the somewhat awkward situation that most Malkioni, out of a desire to not mention the unmentionable G*d L**rn*rs, and to not admit that their doctrine has ever changed, are unable to even allude to what is (allegedly) the most historic and important event in the development of their faith. One would think that they would be able to acknowedge it in some politified way. The "rediscovery" of Rightness, or some such formulism. It would then be possible for Malkioni scholars to discuss who was "pre-GL" or "post-GL" or not, without making the latter sound like an insult (and Correctly making the former one).
> My posts overuse the ellipsis, I agree, but what can you do...?
Come to a Full Stop?
> I'd suggest "700: Invisible God discovered" as a working date.
Joerg breenges in with:
> No, earlier than 675.
<rubs hands in glee> I'm reminded of what Prof. Archie Roy said he did when being pestered by the Flat Earth Society and a bunch of Hollow Earth nuts. He put them in contact with each other...
Alex.
Powered by hypermail