Posted by dorayme on 05/06/07 02:32

In article <Xns9927B77D38294nanopandaneredbojias@208.49.80.251>,
Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 04 May 2007 01:36:43 GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> >> > With money, quantity counts. With facts, quantity is a huge
> >> > nuisance. These two things are very different indeed.
> >>
> >> Just curious, what is your opinion of "The sky is blue"?
> >
> > So... you did not understand it? Facts are cheap and plentiful.
> > Money is not. It is never for want of facts that anything happens
> > or does not happen. The situation with money is different.
>
> Yes, I understood it; I just don't buy it.

You understood it not at all. Just look at the data (facts) on a
well used serious computer and there are no end of them. Do their
sheer numbers help anyone when it comes down to answering
something for which it is not obvious which ones help? Let me
help you: no, they help not at all and are often a confusing
distraction. To answer many questions that are interesting, one
needs to think hard what sort of facts are needed. And only then,
to search for such.

> How can you have the nerve to
> say that facts are irrelevant to happenings? That is ludicrous.

Put this way, it is obvious that facts are quite irrelevant.
Suppose you have a bag full of all the facts there are (a bag
_you_ would treasure with religious awe). Suppose something
happens (pick anything at all). By and large, I would say most of
the things in your bag would be quite irrelevant to the happening.


> How much
> progress do you think would have been made in just the last 2 centuries if
> that were true? Hell, there'd be no filter-tip cigarettes and the phrase
> "back in the saddle again" would still have something to do with horses.

I am going to ask JK and Officer White to have a little word to
you. JK will do the talking and "Bud" will do other things more
in keeping with his natural talents.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]