NoI FAIL to understand what is your real problem gentlemen!!!
The TRP???
could be, because it then gets 'sticky'The volume of the thread???
I thought you would have figured it by now ...The time of posting???
may beThe nature of posts???
In the land you are currently in, 'can' is used to enquire about the capability or possibility. 'Could' is used to ask it to happen.Can you please be more explicit and frank with me???
I am not sure I agree 2 and 2 is not the same as 2 by 2I am sure 2 and 2 can also be 2/2 = 1
No, not me, but since my post was quoted I replied ...or 2.2 as you have rightly pointed out!!!
Now I understand ...I FAIL to understand what is your real problem gentlemen!!!
No
could be, because it then gets 'sticky'
I thought you would have figured it by now ...
anyway here it is ...
View attachment 1968
may be
In the land you are currently in, 'can' is used to enquire about the capability or possibility. 'Could' is used to ask it to happen.
So, the answer I can provide is only 'yes' and 'yes'
I am not sure I agree 2 and 2 is not the same as 2 by 2
No, not me, but since my post was quoted I replied ...
Now I understand ...
Since there is no problem and it therefore is not real, you FAIL (to understand)
dear Mr.O3!
How about 2 (-) 2 = 0.
So All this fuss is about some
non-existing and imaginary problem!!!
So now you settle for the solution
two minus two is equal to zero! Right???
This is what I meant by my earlier message. When we start to "think-it-over" when there is nothing to think, we enter into zero (sunyavada of Buddhism), maya (of advaitam), moon-raker stage (lunacy) and its (lunacy's prathi-dvandi/ounterpart) the rationalism.
Assuming that I was one of the gentlemen (?) alluded to, I have to state that I have no problems whatsoever whether real, unreal, imagined or perceived.