Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 10: |
Line 10: |
| | | |
| (Forgot to say... non-deity eavesdroppers probably wouldn't have the omniscience, so go ahead and randomly profess your belief in them! [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 09:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)) | | (Forgot to say... non-deity eavesdroppers probably wouldn't have the omniscience, so go ahead and randomly profess your belief in them! [[Special:Contributions/31.111.87.233|31.111.87.233]] 09:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)) |
− |
| |
− | :"Wouldn't have hit on the right form and combination of observances anyway"? Hmm. If only this hypothetical God had hypothetically given us some hypothetical information... like a book or something. That would have been helpful. --[[User:Jlc|Jlc]] ([[User talk:Jlc|talk]]) 02:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :My best argument against pretending to believe something you doesn't is: do you really want to spend an ethernity with people whose belief you faked? For (extreme) example, if only Jehovah's witnesses go to heaven (and assuming you are not one), do you WANT to go there? Similarly, abstinents probably don't want to end in Valhalla. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 08:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | ::This is a lot of unnecessary talk, even realized to be such by the one who wrote it. The explanation, as written, is fine without this extraneity. [[Special:Contributions/152.119.255.250|152.119.255.250]] 16:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
− | :::Since you did remove the incomplete tag I did add some more explains for Pascal's Wager. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 20:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | You get the record for longest expoundition of a title text.[[Special:Contributions/72.70.180.234|72.70.180.234]] 18:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | :Yes, check your e-mail. (Not you; him.)
| |
− |
| |
− | [[User:Weatherlawyer| I used Google News BEFORE it was clickbait]] ([[User talk:Weatherlawyer|talk]]) 19:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | There is a [[explain_xkcd:Community_portal/Proposals#Merge_Cueball_.26_Rob|community portal discussion]] of what to call Cueball and what to do in case with more than one Cueball. I have added this comic to the new Category:Multiple Cueballs. Since there is only one Cueball that "talks" it is obvious to keep him listed as Cueball. Just made a note that the other guy also looks like Cueball. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:43, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | Cueball's calculation here is wrong. Yes, if there's nobody listening, he doesn't lose anything. But if there is, what happens when they think he's on to them could get unpleasant for him. {{unsigned ip|108.162.221.64}}
| |
− |
| |
− | I'd do this on the internet but there's a good chance they actually are listening. Though they can't arrest commies for being commies, they can still watchlist them and monitor them closely, especially those who admit to plotting revolution. So yes, I know the government is listening, and the government knows I know they're listening. My only wonder is what are the consequences going to be? And how much faster will it be because I know they're listening?
| |
− |
| |
− | Perhaps Cueball shouldn't be so quick as to say such... [[User:International Space Station|International Space Station]] ([[User talk:International Space Station|talk]]) 05:25, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | It is funny how embarrassing doing this actually feels, and how hard it seems to be to utter out. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.11.88|172.68.11.88]] 22:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
| |
− |
| |
− | who else say I know your listening, alone.
| |