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 : Fri Sep 30 2005 00:16:50 From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:49:53 -0700, Richard Clark wrote: >On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 21:58:14 -0500, Matt Osborn <> wrote: > >>> 2. A doctrine holding that all values are baseless and that nothing >>>can be known or communicated. >does not proceed towards: >>How could you possibly read the denial of existence itself? >but in fact stems from >>>>>>So in what context do we contain poorly understood rules and >>>>>>perceptions? How do we speak of them? >which is nihilistic. The confusion is yours, explicitly admitted to, >and it is evidenced in many of your statements. As such, the >consistency speaks for itself and mocks these attempts at denial. > Well, with your editing, I suppose you could strain credulity and make such a claim. "... Most conclude, wisely in my opinion, that our experience should be our guide. That if we don't eat we starve, that if we jump off to high a platform we die, that if we stay under water too long we drown. That there are rules that we disobey at our own peril. The above are the simple rules, those that are readily perceived and accepted by most. They were not, however, always so well known or so well understood, like hygiene for instance. So in what context do we contain poorly understood rules and perceptions? How do we speak of them? We could always resort to obtuse phrases such as 'that which cannot be contained', or 'that which is smaller than smallest small' or 'that which is larger than largest large'." I was clearly addressing the introduction of new ideas (as opposed to well known ideas) and pointing out that it's difficult to discuss things we are just starting to perceive. Your insistance upon putting words in my mouth is amazing. If you don't understand, say so. -- msosborn at msosborn dot com .