Subj : Re: "Hams to the Rescue After Katrina" MSNBC News Article
To   : alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.policy
From : Matt Osborn
Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 22:58:14

From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:56:14 -0700, Richard Clark <kb7qhc@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 19:57:13 -0500, Matt Osborn <> wrote:
>
>>Not even close. From my limited study, this seems to be the seed from
>>which psychology and psychiatry arose.
>>
>>From the OED:
>
>The OED is fine if you include the historical tag citations,
>contemporary dictionaries (unless you are arguing from the perspective
>of a 19th century monk) allow:
>
>   1. An extreme form of skepticism that denies all existence.
>   2. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing
>can be known or communicated.
>
>>>>So in what context do we contain poorly understood rules and
>>>>perceptions?  How do we speak of them? 
>fits perfectly fine in the second context and dovetails with your
>rather amorphous logic.  In fact, this second usage is almost your
>manifesto here - with the aforementioned insurance policy against
>damnation.

My post confirmed the extensive existence of the universe both large
and small. It also pointed to the limited tools at our disposal to
analyze and understand that immense world.

There was no denial of anything in the post, let alone denial of
existence itself. In fact, the little of that post yet remaining
laments of how little of that world we understand and how difficult it
is for us to speak of it.

How could you possibly read the denial of existence itself?



-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

.