Boxerworks.com

Major Softie wrote: . . . I think it becomes something else, but I'm certain that the "rule" no longer remains a rule. . .

I agree Major. The way it works, I guess, is that the old rule is then gone and long live the new improved rule.

Until it gets tested and proven wrong


But the thing that I'm wondering about most is how 100 "proof" spirits relate to this discussion.


Ken

Ken said, "Now, whether that's what ZM meant when he wrote what he wrote is whole other question. But he's not above a bit of rabble rousing, even if he has to use a word correctly to do it."

I am sticking up for ZM and vouch for the fact that he would never use a word correctly. He is a man of honor and wouldn't stoop that low.

psssst, I think that he wants to date my sister Diane.

Ken"

So an exception to a commonly believed "truth", would indeed test that truth, i.e. prove the rule.

Hmm, interesting possibility, but I'm not sure I buy it. A "proof" must succeed in proving the rule, mustn't it? If it proves the rule false, I do not believe it is still called a proof; I think it becomes something else, but I'm certain that the "rule" no longer remains a rule.

If it proves the rule is false, has it "proved the rule?" I think not . . . but I'm not sure. [/quote]

Have a nice nap, ZM. Ken and I are having a fine time without you.