> > > > I do not deny you your belief that the sages of old > > > > whom you revere had everything sussed out. It's just > > > > that I prefer to believe that they were ordinary > > > > human beings trying to figure things out, just as > > > > we are. Their scribblings are no more definitive > > > > than our own. Mystery remains intact. > > > > Curtis wrote: > > > The whole post was excellent but this paragraph > > > really stands out. > > > > > > Being absolutely sure about how the world works > > > is a powerful seductive drug. > > > > > You're absolutely sure about this. > > Curtis wrote: > For some people, yes. I was one of them for many > years. > So, Barry's post WAS a red-herring - hardly anyone on the planet is 'absolutely sure about how the world works', except you and Barry. Both of you were once absolutely sure about how the world works, but now you're not so sure? But you are both absolutely sure that the 'mystery remains intact'.
> So how did this formulaic challenge advance the > discussion Richard? > What part of 'red-herring' did you not understand? > Challenging the epistemologically disastrous move > of being sure of things like the relationship between > people's actions and natural disasters, does not mean > that I don't have an opinion on the matter. It just > means that my post wont end with: > So, did you really have a needle in your arm? > "You don't buy that, fine, but life will continue to > operate on that basis regardless of anybody's > recognition or not." > Are you're 'absolutly' sure it was a needle in your arm? Barry says you drank the 'kool-ade' but you're saying you took drugs in the arm with a needle? Which statement is absolutely 'The Truth'? Why can't you two just be honest? You don't have a clue - you are not 'sages' - you're just scribbling, trying to figure things out! > > > I am just really glad I got that needle out of > > > my arm.
