At least we have something in common.
Dan Nave <dan.n...@nilfisk-advance.com> wrote: Not to worry.
I know you do not know what the truth is...
Dan ;-))
---------------------------------
From: Kurt Milkowski [mailto:kurt.milkow...@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:42 PM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: CS>Do we want to be Deceived?
When did I say I knew what the truth was?
Dan Nave <dan.n...@nilfisk-advance.com> wrote: An interpretation is
always wrong, in some respect.
And we don't have anything else *but* interpretation.
This "we" includes you Kurt.
Dan
---------------------------------
From: Kurt Milkowski [mailto:kurt.milkow...@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 1:53 PM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: RE: CS>Do we want to be Deceived?
An interpretation, if it's wrong, ain't the truth is it?
Dan Nave <dan.n...@nilfisk-advance.com> wrote: Your interpretation of
truth...
Dan
---------------------------------
From: Kurt Milkowski [mailto:kurt.milkow...@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:34 AM
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: CS>Do we want to be Deceived?
You have to ask? Pretty simple isn't it? How can there be more than one truth?
faith gagne <jitte...@gis.net> wrote: I can't resist. And what
would that one ttruth be?
----- Original Message -----
From: Kurt Milkowski
To: silver-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: CS>Do we want to be Deceived?
You can develope any version of the "truth" you want to. But there really can
only be one "truth".
Kurt
