Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (4214)	3/22/2002 1:13:06 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 21057

I'm not making a determination I merely mention a possibility see the "could" that is what it means "possibility" not "determination" I don't see "liklihood" and "determination" as synonyms which is why I am really an agnostic despite what people who aren't me say about what I believe and if they can't all be right, but could all be wrong, what is more likely? when we are talking about fallible humans, who make mistakes constantly?"

To: one_less who wrote (4214)	3/22/2002 1:24:53 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Just out of curiosity, why do you qualify "all could be wrong"? because there is certainly, at least the theoretical possibility, that everyone on this planet, who has a conception of a higher order, is wrong about it. Absolutely wrong. And the the higher order is something no one imagines, nor ever has imagined. Why isn't that possible? Why qualify the possibility with "partially wrong"? Not saying a higher order exists remember- just saying if it did, it seems to me it would be possible for it to be something no one is right about. Unless merely mentioning the higher order gives you some "right" points. Maybe that is what you are saying. Wasn't clear.