FRISTIANITY!!!

[Tyler Durden]

This one's for the Right Rev. ExplodingSun!

Take it away, brother, and the rest of you, keep hitting www.fristianity.com! Googlebomb, here we come!

[lonestarnot]

1. Good Rev.exploding sun!

[rpannier]

2. Amen Reverend n/t

[cry baby]

3. I don't understand - does google count the number of hits

on websites and put them on a list or something?

[jojo54]

4. Don't know but

I had heard they're tied somehow to the right, so I don't use Google.

But I'm gonna keep tabs on "fristianity.com". This I GOTTA see!

[Extend a Hand]

6. googlebombs

google looks for the number of links to a page (not hits on a page). go to google and search for "miserable failure" and the top story will be the official george bush bio on the white house web site.

that was my all time favorite -- :rofl:
an oldie but goodie

[ltfranklin]

5. I googled it...

Ok, somebody explain this to me:

>The Fristianity Objection (hereafter, FO) doesn't need to *argue* that
>something else satisfies (1). It only needs to 'float' the suggestion that
>something else does and then invite a response from the TAG avocate.

AND
>It should be evident that the FO in no way asserts, or presupposes, the
>*truth* of Fristianity. It only suggests *arguendo* that Fristianity >is a
>(strictly) logical possibility (or, on the variable/template view, >that
>'Fristianity' can be instantiated). To say that Fristianity is a
>possibility in the *strictly logical* sense, is only to say that there is
>no formal contradiction between (a) Fristianity satisfying the ontological
>preconditions of meaningful experience and (b) Fristianity being
>'non-Christian' in some significant sense.

This is an Option B conception.

>Even if Option A and Option B can be usefully distinguished, it isn't clear
>how the former "relies on the truth of Fristianity".


MY BRAIN HURTS!!!!