On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Cary Basscary@wikimedia.org wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Brownmorven@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Magnus Manskemagnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Come to think of it:
The bible is either wrong, in which case it shouldn't be cited.
Or it's true, which would mean that it was dictated by God himself. Wouldn't that make it original research?
The Bible is a well-known ancient work with great cultural significance. Its status as fiction or fact is almost beside the point. It is accurate about what it itself says, which can be cited as appropriate to inform articles where what it said was/is relevant.
(And I know I'm taking a joking suggestion seriously, prolonging the joke!)
You're right. To atone for my sins, here the auto-comparing toolserver tool I hacked since my first mail:
http://toolserver.org/~magnus/biblebay.php?bookname=John&range=3%3A16-3%...
Magnus
Magnus: that is awesome.
I didn't know we were allowed to end silly discussions here with actual working cool code.
I second Cary - that's awesome. Thanks, Magnus!