When I logon to "Epistemology" I am normally pleased to find
interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
Perhaps Amoram speaks to a higher wisdom, that I am too much of a
village idiot to understand? Perhaps I am ignorant of the wonders of
Amoram's topics and am not worthy to grace the same Newsgroup? But it
seems to me, a man of humble beginning and humble intellect, that
Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.
Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
principles.
A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
control your in base to mine. You are acting in this way: you besed
yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
but that of the same science.
If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
AFFIRMATION.
If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
desider to DO NOTHING of new.
The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
without solution?
It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
CONGRUENCY.
The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
I am correct, and do not offend none.
But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
opposes his Juice, against mine.
To reveal my incongruency I am to be put in contraddiction with my
idea and not the George's one!
If he thinks that - so acting - he loves Epistemology, itsn't true,
because he doesn't contraddict me using my affirmations but... his.
A real control of 3+5=8 is made controlling this, on the base of this,
and not of the OPINIONS of George that says "it is not important. Pass
over!".
Or... "There is not the necessity to work for unifying the Physics,
and thi wark is time lost!"
Nothing, in the Physics is so important, how the Unification of what
is not Unified.
So these matters are directly involved with epistemology, in the line
of the most necessity, because if the UNIFICATION lacks there is a
reason. What is it?
I have found it. The Physic hasn't respected its general assumptions,
and I have numbered it: 1, 2, 3... till to 8, where one, one only out
be enough!
On 25 Giu, 13:41, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> When I logon to "Epistemology" I am normally pleased to find
> interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
> matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
> topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
> or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
> fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
> pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
> Perhaps Amoram speaks to a higher wisdom, that I am too much of a
> village idiot to understand? Perhaps I am ignorant of the wonders of
> Amoram's topics and am not worthy to grace the same Newsgroup? But it
> seems to me, a man of humble beginning and humble intellect, that
> Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.
> Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> principles.
I dont think this first declaration is ok. As epistemology is just a
philosophic discipline dealing with knowledge.
So I dont see why I should accept words like rational control, and
Science's principles.
Anyway all views are welcome, but be careful, do not claim you are
some Church victim (church here equals physics), when you try to
impose your own view as well.
Being not religious at all, I do believe Faith is also a valid path to
knowledge, knowledge of what, well, knowledge of Faith's objects,
which are fascinating no doubt.
Absolute values are not possible within any language environment, and
Science, Faith, Theories, even Math are language domains
I dont know which is your mother tongue. Mine are Spanish and
Portuguese
And happens to be we have two different values for the word Absolute.
Absoluto and Absoluta, being the first a "he" and the second a "she".
So see how even the word absolute in my language is unable to mean
"Absolute".
There will be always a gap, expressed like decimal positions or who
knows through how many other forms.
The distance between the tool we use (words, signs) and the
information we try to point is always there.
We necessarily approach, so results like 8, 999999020228 (whatever)
are part of the endless game.
Descartes tried to bridge that gap, and may be he felt good for a
while. The only little detail he did not see was "I"
I exist is the very trap, should be better I "exists", but then we
need to enter poetry, (IMO the only valid path)
Physics also has a poetic side. Gravity, Space, Time, Universe, are
poetic words pointing to absolute concepts, among many others of
course.
Could anyone tell me which is the difference between Space/Time and
God. I'll tell you what, the only difference is that I feel bad when I
say God, but that is another thing, I believe
> A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
> control your in base to mine. You are acting in this way: you besed
> yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
> of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
> Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
> but that of the same science.
> If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
> experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
> AFFIRMATION.
> If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
> in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
> But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
> interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
> desider to DO NOTHING of new.
> The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
> Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
> Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
> existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
> without solution?
> It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
> I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
> but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
> afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
> CONGRUENCY.
> The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
> isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
> I am correct, and do not offend none.
> But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
> opposes his Juice, against mine.
> To reveal my incongruency I am to be put in contraddiction with my
> idea and not the George's one!
> If he thinks that - so acting - he loves Epistemology, itsn't true,
> because he doesn't contraddict me using my affirmations but... his.
> A real control of 3+5=8 is made controlling this, on the base of this,
> and not of the OPINIONS of George that says "it is not important. Pass
> over!".
> Or... "There is not the necessity to work for unifying the Physics,
> and thi wark is time lost!"
> Nothing, in the Physics is so important, how the Unification of what
> is not Unified.
> So these matters are directly involved with epistemology, in the line
> of the most necessity, because if the UNIFICATION lacks there is a
> reason. What is it?
> I have found it. The Physic hasn't respected its general assumptions,
> and I have numbered it: 1, 2, 3... till to 8, where one, one only out
> be enough!
> On 25 Giu, 13:41, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > When I logon to "Epistemology" I am normally pleased to find
> > interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
> > matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
> > topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
> > or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
> > fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
> > pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
> > Perhaps Amoram speaks to a higher wisdom, that I am too much of a
> > village idiot to understand? Perhaps I am ignorant of the wonders of
> > Amoram's topics and am not worthy to grace the same Newsgroup? But it
> > seems to me, a man of humble beginning and humble intellect, that
> > Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.
On 26 Jun, 13:54, amoram <ra.amo...@libero.it> wrote:
> Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> principles.
> A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
> control your in base to mine.
Can you answer a simple question? Are you using an online translator?
Becasue your words are gibberish. What, for example, do you mean by
"personal juice"?
You are acting in this way: you besed
> yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
> of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
Meaning is lost here too.
> Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
> but that of the same science.
> If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
> experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
> AFFIRMATION.
> If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
> in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
> But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
> interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
> desider to DO NOTHING of new.
> The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
> Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
> Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
> existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
> without solution?
> It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
> I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
> but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
> afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
> CONGRUENCY.
Eh what?
> The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
> isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
Well I've never tried the juice of otters. Is it the same stuff as you
get from squeezing a beaver?
> I am correct, and do not offend none.
This is a double negative and implies that you offend everyone.
> But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
> opposes his Juice, against mine.
hehehe Can you PLEASE tell us all what you think "juice" is?
> To reveal my incongruency I am to be put in contraddiction with my
> idea and not the George's one!
> If he thinks that - so acting - he loves Epistemology, itsn't true,
> because he doesn't contraddict me using my affirmations but... his.
> A real control of 3+5=8 is made controlling this, on the base of this,
> and not of the OPINIONS of George that says "it is not important. Pass
> over!".
> Or... "There is not the necessity to work for unifying the Physics,
> and thi wark is time lost!"
> Nothing, in the Physics is so important, how the Unification of what
> is not Unified.
> So these matters are directly involved with epistemology, in the line
> of the most necessity, because if the UNIFICATION lacks there is a
> reason. What is it?
> I have found it. The Physic hasn't respected its general assumptions,
> and I have numbered it: 1, 2, 3... till to 8, where one, one only out
> be enough!
> On 25 Giu, 13:41, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > When I logon to "Epistemology" I am normally pleased to find
> > interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
> > matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
> > topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
> > or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
> > fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
> > pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
> > Perhaps Amoram speaks to a higher wisdom, that I am too much of a
> > village idiot to understand? Perhaps I am ignorant of the wonders of
> > Amoram's topics and am not worthy to grace the same Newsgroup? But it
> > seems to me, a man of humble beginning and humble intellect, that
> > Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.
> > Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> > principles.
> I dont think this first declaration is ok. As epistemology is just a
> philosophic discipline dealing with knowledge.
> So I dont see why I should accept words like rational control, and
> Science's principles.
> Anyway all views are welcome, but be careful, do not claim you are
> some Church victim (church here equals physics), when you try to
> impose your own view as well.
> Being not religious at all, I do believe Faith is also a valid path to
> knowledge, knowledge of what, well, knowledge of Faith's objects,
> which are fascinating no doubt.
Surely this is simply a confusion of meaning. Faith is not a path to
any kind of knowledge. Study, evidence and reason are paths to
knowledge. Faith is nothing more than the path to belief.
It is possible to "take on faith" some knowledge, as a priori
information by which you can acquire more knowledge. But this "faith"
is only in the sense of trust, whereby one can trust the results of
another's empirical and experiential evidence without having direct
contact with the material in question. But this is not the same as
taking on Faith beliefs for which no a posteriori evidence can be
available or possible. To take on such beliefs can only lead to
contradiction, confusion and more unsupportable beliefs.
> Absolute values are not possible within any language environment, and
> Science, Faith, Theories, even Math are language domains
> I dont know which is your mother tongue. Mine are Spanish and
> Portuguese
> And happens to be we have two different values for the word Absolute.
> Absoluto and Absoluta, being the first a "he" and the second a "she".
> So see how even the word absolute in my language is unable to mean
> "Absolute".
> There will be always a gap, expressed like decimal positions or who
> knows through how many other forms.
> The distance between the tool we use (words, signs) and the
> information we try to point is always there.
> We necessarily approach, so results like 8, 999999020228 (whatever)
> are part of the endless game.
> Descartes tried to bridge that gap, and may be he felt good for a
> while. The only little detail he did not see was "I"
> I exist is the very trap, should be better I "exists", but then we
> need to enter poetry, (IMO the only valid path)
> Physics also has a poetic side. Gravity, Space, Time, Universe, are
> poetic words pointing to absolute concepts, among many others of
> course.
> Could anyone tell me which is the difference between Space/Time and
> God. I'll tell you what, the only difference is that I feel bad when I
> say God, but that is another thing, I believe
> rgds
> > A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
> > control your in base to mine. You are acting in this way: you besed
> > yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
> > of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
> > Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
> > but that of the same science.
> > If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
> > experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
> > AFFIRMATION.
> > If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
> > in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
> > But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
> > interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
> > desider to DO NOTHING of new.
> > The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
> > Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
> > Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
> > existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
> > without solution?
> > It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
> > I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
> > but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
> > afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
> > CONGRUENCY.
> > The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
> > isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
> > I am correct, and do not offend none.
> > But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
> > opposes his Juice, against mine.
> > To reveal my incongruency I am to be put in contraddiction with my
> > idea and not the George's one!
> > If he thinks that - so acting - he loves Epistemology, itsn't true,
> > because he doesn't contraddict me using my affirmations but... his.
> > A real control of 3+5=8 is made controlling this, on the base of this,
> > and not of the OPINIONS of George that says "it is not important. Pass
> > over!".
> > Or... "There is not the necessity to work for unifying the Physics,
> > and thi wark is time lost!"
> > Nothing, in the Physics is so important, how the Unification of what
> > is not Unified.
> > So these matters are directly involved with epistemology, in the line
> > of the most necessity, because if the UNIFICATION lacks there is a
> > reason. What is it?
> > I have found it. The Physic hasn't respected its general assumptions,
> > and I have numbered it: 1, 2, 3... till to 8, where one, one only out
> > be enough!
> > On 25 Giu, 13:41, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > When I logon to "Epistemology" I am normally pleased to find
> > > interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
> > > matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
> > > topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
> > > or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
> > > fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
> > > pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
> > > Perhaps Amoram speaks to a higher wisdom, that I am too much of a
> > > village idiot to understand? Perhaps I am ignorant of the wonders of
> > > Amoram's topics and am not worthy to grace the same Newsgroup? But it
> > > seems to me, a man of humble beginning and humble intellect, that
> > > Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.
It seems to me that we put stories together in the hope we are getting
things right. Science and being reasonable where we can makes us seek
evidence. Sure, this may swirl in the theory of the story, but
there's a point where we can have faith in evidence rather than the
story world-view and any faith that requires. There is ability in
spinning the yarn (poetics?) AND in working out demonstration - plus a
need to accept how one is relating concepts in a frame. At some times
it is acceptable to hold competing theories or stories as possible, to
hold to symbolic interpretation, but it is surely not acceptable to
use specious bollox other than for prudential reasons (such as
believing in aroma therapy because it is easing you path to death to
do so). We always evaluate against a relational field - and sometimes
if that field is exposed so is the daftness of the argument.
On Jun 26, 4:13 pm, einseele <Einse...@gmail.com> wrote:
Howdy Chazwin....
I was wondering the same thing, myself..... but (unlike you) I have an
"empathy" for people who may not completely understand the English
Language (been there myself).... sometimes such people just try to do
a "sounds like" direct "transferrence".... here's a possibility that
makes some sense to me ....
> On 26 Jun, 13:54, amoram <ra.amo...@libero.it> wrote:
> > Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> > principles.
> > A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
> > control your in base to mine.
> Can you answer a simple question? Are you using an online translator?
> Becasue your words are gibberish. What, for example, do you mean by
> "personal juice"?
> You are acting in this way: you besed
> > yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
> > of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
> Meaning is lost here too.
> > Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
> > but that of the same science.
> Ditto.
> > If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
> > experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
> > AFFIRMATION.
> > If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
> > in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
> > But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
> > interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
> > desider to DO NOTHING of new.
> > The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
> > Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
> > Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
> > existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
> > without solution?
> > It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
> > I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
> > but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
> > afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
> > CONGRUENCY.
> Eh what?
> > The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
> > isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
> Well I've never tried the juice of otters. Is it the same stuff as you
> get from squeezing a beaver?
> > I am correct, and do not offend none.
> This is a double negative and implies that you offend everyone.
> > But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
> > opposes his Juice, against mine.
> hehehe Can you PLEASE tell us all what you think "juice" is?
> > To reveal my incongruency I am to be put in contraddiction with my
> > idea and not the George's one!
> > If he thinks that - so acting - he loves Epistemology, itsn't true,
> > because he doesn't contraddict me using my affirmations but... his.
> > A real control of 3+5=8 is made controlling this, on the base of this,
> > and not of the OPINIONS of George that says "it is not important. Pass
> > over!".
> > Or... "There is not the necessity to work for unifying the Physics,
> > and thi wark is time lost!"
> > Nothing, in the Physics is so important, how the Unification of what
> > is not Unified.
> > So these matters are directly involved with epistemology, in the line
> > of the most necessity, because if the UNIFICATION lacks there is a
> > reason. What is it?
> > I have found it. The Physic hasn't respected its general assumptions,
> > and I have numbered it: 1, 2, 3... till to 8, where one, one only out
> > be enough!
> > On 25 Giu, 13:41, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > When I logon to "Epistemology" I am normally pleased to find
> > > interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
> > > matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
> > > topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
> > > or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
> > > fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
> > > pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
> > > Perhaps Amoram speaks to a higher wisdom, that I am too much of a
> > > village idiot to understand? Perhaps I am ignorant of the wonders of
> > > Amoram's topics and am not worthy to grace the same Newsgroup? But it
> > > seems to me, a man of humble beginning and humble intellect, that
> > > Amoram's postings are nothing better than gibberish.- Hide quoted text -
Apparently English is an odd language in that it is structured
differently from how everyone uses visual language in stuff like
charades. I note scientific language is far too hard for mere mortals
in the humanities (Guradian yesterday) - oops - Grauniad!
On 30 Jun, 16:06, nominal9 <nomin...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Howdy Chazwin....
> I was wondering the same thing, myself..... but (unlike you) I have an
> "empathy" for people who may not completely understand the English
> Language (been there myself).... sometimes such people just try to do
> a "sounds like" direct "transferrence".... here's a possibility that
> makes some sense to me ....
> On Jun 26, 10:43 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On 26 Jun, 13:54, amoram <ra.amo...@libero.it> wrote:
> > > Dear friend EPISTEMOLOGY is the rational control of all the Science's
> > > principles.
> > > A serious control isn't based on the personal juice, and I don't
> > > control your in base to mine.
> > Can you answer a simple question? Are you using an online translator?
> > Becasue your words are gibberish. What, for example, do you mean by
> > "personal juice"?
> > You are acting in this way: you besed
> > > yours judices on me, basing on yours. You, so acting, are not students
> > > of Epistemology, but the CHURCH of the actual Faith in the Science.
> > Meaning is lost here too.
> > > Wen I consider the Physics i Control it on the base not of mine VERB,
> > > but that of the same science.
> > Ditto.
> > > If PHISICS affirm: "An "Absolute" quantity cannot be derived in
> > > experimental way" I can control the Physical action on the base OF ITS
> > > AFFIRMATION.
> > > If I - so acting - discover that the PHYSIC affirms in a way and DOES
> > > in the opposit way, I do an important contribute.
> > > But if I enter in a CHURCH, and I do the same, to discover a bad
> > > interpretation of Jesus, I disturb the quiet of persons that don't
> > > desider to DO NOTHING of new.
> > > The Epistemology has or not the function to FOUND NEW MISTAKES?
> > > Or they all are already KNOWN and we can stop every research?
> > > Are really so disturbed from me, that have the courage to analize the
> > > existing, expecially when is more than 100 years that a problem is
> > > without solution?
> > > It is not a question of intelligence, or to be the village's foolish.
> > > I speake CLEAR: I do not do the axamination starting from my FAITH,
> > > but starting from the other one. But if ONE believes in a Truth, and
> > > afterwards acts believing in the Opposite Truth I note the lack of
> > > CONGRUENCY.
> > Eh what?
> > > The Physics today cannot be unified by lack of congruency, and this
> > > isnt a JUICE made starting from the Juice of the oters.
> > Well I've never tried the juice of otters. Is it the same stuff as you
> > get from squeezing a beaver?
> > > I am correct, and do not offend none.
> > This is a double negative and implies that you offend everyone.
> > > But I am offended, becouse against my Epistemology Search, Goeorge
> > > opposes his Juice, against mine.
> > hehehe Can you PLEASE tell us all what you think "juice" is?
> > > To reveal my incongruency I am to be put in contraddiction with my
> > > idea and not the George's one!
> > > If he thinks that - so acting - he loves Epistemology, itsn't true,
> > > because he doesn't contraddict me using my affirmations but... his.
> > > A real control of 3+5=8 is made controlling this, on the base of this,
> > > and not of the OPINIONS of George that says "it is not important. Pass
> > > over!".
> > > Or... "There is not the necessity to work for unifying the Physics,
> > > and thi wark is time lost!"
> > > Nothing, in the Physics is so important, how the Unification of what
> > > is not Unified.
> > > So these matters are directly involved with epistemology, in the line
> > > of the most necessity, because if the UNIFICATION lacks there is a
> > > reason. What is it?
> > > I have found it. The Physic hasn't respected its general assumptions,
> > > and I have numbered it: 1, 2, 3... till to 8, where one, one only out
> > > be enough!
> > > On 25 Giu, 13:41, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > When I logon to "Epistemology" I am normally pleased to find
> > > > interesting and coherent debate on matters of epistemology and related
> > > > matters. Where they are not directly involved with epistemology, the
> > > > topics are otherwise of some interest in the realm of current affairs
> > > > or humour. I have always imagined that George was a sort of magic
> > > > fairy that helped prevent spam and gibberish from polluting the fine
> > > > pages herein: a moderator. Am I wrong?
> > > > Pe
