Been told but only seven came. Would that infact change the way it was later to be looked at, or would it simply imply that only what had come before had infact been there to begin with? I'm sure there is a side that would say that neither are true if there is a cause to its affect. What about the time in which it is spoken of and in the sight of whom it maybe challanged. I think there maybe still some that can comment on how it was likley to have been before a simple time when the day was not even at its place. What do you think?
2007-09-12 04:14:40 · 19 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
In that case you're probably right in making such an assumption. If only the desired amount where present when the question was asked and yet it was only heard by the challanger, they would have no cause in such an attempt and its answer could eventually become void. As for the sight of whom it would be questioned, I think that its relevence is only void in those terms when you consider the how simple the time was, or indeed if even was in its place a question to those to begin with.
2007-09-12 04:25:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If it is possible that the question in the meaning would not be lapsed that could not still be learned. What will be counted but only seven came to that infact the way to modify it behind, or had to be examined would imply simply that only that came to start before infact with was? I am certainly a party I am that that none of both where is would say if a cause the position its afectiva is. That regarding the time in which challanged is said and in the face whose perhaps. There I think perhaps still some that were to have been on as they can give to the commentary likley stops before a simple time to the this moment the day to its place - has not exactly been.
2007-09-12 11:29:43 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is possible, but the essential voidness of the question does not in any way negate the produndity of its presuppossed meaning[s].
Many think that when they encounter a new idea, that they are the first to do so but this is always hubris. There is nothing new under the sun.
Also there is always the Flammerstat paradigm!
2007-09-12 11:25:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Miss Scarlett in the Library with the Lead Piping.
Either someones let E.T have a computer or YOU STONED!
2007-09-12 11:42:37 · answer #4 · answered by KB 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Is this Caitlin Upton, Miss South Carolina 2007?
I don't know of you're worse at asking questions or answering them.
2007-09-12 11:23:43 · answer #5 · answered by r~@~w 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That's pretty clever. Writing total nonsense is not easy, but you succeeded. Well done.
2007-09-12 11:20:00 · answer #6 · answered by Hello Dave 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
seven what, ringwraiths? (and yes i know, theres nine!)
i dont understand what the hell your on about so ill leave you to sober while i earn easy points
2007-09-12 11:37:05 · answer #7 · answered by Adam (AM) 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Glue sniffer.
2007-09-12 11:23:53 · answer #8 · answered by ross x 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You forgot to include a subject in all those words.
2007-09-12 11:23:24 · answer #9 · answered by Samurai Jack 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Magic mushrooms or weed? What's your secret?
EDIT CHARLTON THE DOORMAN: DON'T YOU MEAN BING CROSBY?
2007-09-12 11:30:43 · answer #10 · answered by Stella S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋