On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:40:54 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote:
Tim wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:11:22 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:



... A sign from that mysterious imaginary being of mythology and

superstition ...



Which one?



All of them.

Then why didn't you say something to the effect of- " ... 'sign[s] from 'those' imaginary being[s]...?"

On 8/28/13 8:21 PM, Tim wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:40:54 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote:
Tim wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:11:22 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:



... A sign from that mysterious imaginary being of mythology and

superstition ...



Which one?



All of them.

Then why didn't you say something to the effect of- " ... 'sign[s] from 'those' imaginary being[s]...?"





Tim, I'm not writing garden-path sentences. The imaginary being(s) are
all part of the conceptions of a god, the god, gods, whatever, all part
of the same sort of superstition.

On Wednesday, August 28, 2013 7:36:48 PM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 8/28/13 8:21 PM, Tim wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:40:54 PM UTC-5, F. O. A. D. wrote:

Tim wrote:



On Tuesday, August 27, 2013 7:11:22 AM UTC-5, F.O.A.D. wrote:







... A sign from that mysterious imaginary being of mythology and



superstition ...







Which one?







All of them.



Then why didn't you say something to the effect of- " ... 'sign[s] from 'those' imaginary being[s]...?"











Tim, I'm not writing garden-path sentences. The imaginary being(s) are

all part of the conceptions of a god, the god, gods, whatever, all part

of the same sort of superstition.

But still, it doesn't make sense at least to me why you'd write singular then plural- back and forth etc.