Talk:Book of the SubGenius

Hello, this talk of seeing through the government and into "the conspiracy" is a little vague, although I'm assuming it's a belief in some sort of illuminati-esque conspiracy. Would someone be willing to expand? -Chris.

"The Conspiracy" is not of the Discordant Illuminati varity as such. Outsiders assume that to be so because Subgenii are regularly, falsely linked with that group. To define The Conspiracy would need a full seperate article and I'm not going to be the Yeti to write that tome! Ehdee 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of "The Conspiracy (SubGenius)" getting its own page. It is larger than just "the government" and the Illuminati. jzp (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that the Church of the SubGenius is satirical in nature, could this book really be said to be non-fiction? GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Given that the Bible is bullshit in nature, could that book really be said to be non-fiction?

The difference is that not everyone believes that the Bible is "bullshit", and some sincerely believe in it being literal truth. Noone thinks that this book is literal truth. In future, try to avoid inflammatory descriptions, and please sign your posts with a ~~~~ to let people know who's talking. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 17:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I know of many who believe this to be the literal truth, myself included. Why label a non-fiction book as fiction just because a few people can understand 'satirical' doesn't mean 'untruthful'. I was not the previous anon. poster, btw. Ehdee 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bob" sold it, I bought it. That settles it. This is gospel. There is no argument for the truly slackful." ZachsMind 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded! Priase "Bob!" There's more truth to this book than the Holy Bible, that's for sure! ClintJCL (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Putting a verify tag on this article because it is being used as a serious reference

See Church of the SubGenius where this article is being used as a reference for the quotes.

Now I have read the other comments on this talk page and realize that some people on the talk page believe the book is a satire, while others believe it is the literal truth. Whatever. The Wikipedia page still can't be used as a reference for another article anyway.

But since the articles does exist and is being linked to, it needs to be verified per WP:V just as any other article has to be. Mattisse(talk) 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

By contrasting "some people on the talk page believe the book is a satire, while others believe it is the literal truth", you miss the entire point - it's both. See the post of User:Ehdee above: "I know of many who believe this to be the literal truth, myself included. Why label a non-fiction book as fiction just because a few people can understand 'satirical' doesn't mean 'untruthful'." In an inherently silly world, the only truth lies in satire. (This is my interpretation, as a non-SubGenius; SubGenii feel free to pounce, gently.) --Davecampbell (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Robert Ciochon?

"The inside cover includes a dedication to the original inspiration for the SubGenius Church, Robert Ciochon."

I've never heard that Ciochon was the "original inspiration" for the Church. When I googled "robert ciochon" subgenius it brought up 3 results: this page, and two other pages that had IDENTICAL text as this article (http://doryoku.org/site/topic/4142242 and http://wapedia.mobi/en/Book_of_the_SubGenius).

I don't have a copy of the book anymore, but I'm pretty sure there is no reference to him being the original inspiration. Can anyone verify/cite this? Also, it's "Subgenius", not "SubGenius". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.192.129.34 (talk) 01:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no reference to "Robert Ciochon" in the Book. jzp (talk) 01:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)