Unknown magic sites in starting provinces?

[jaif]

Oh neat, a flame war, can I play too? :-) While I don't know (or care to read) where this little war started from (though I can guess from the topic), I'd like to chime in about the topic at hand.

exist: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exist

"To have actual being; be real."

know: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know

"To perceive directly; grasp in the mind with clarity or certainty."

There is a difference between a thing and knowledge of the thing. While common usage can cause the definitions of these two to cross, a quick check of the dictionary shows how they differ.

Finally, I think there's little point in arguing words; words are simply meant to communicate thoughts, so just agree on a meaning of the words and move on to the underlying thoughts (which are apparently lost in the 90+ Messages preceding this.).

-Jeff

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Graeme Dice you still are not providing any proof... only your opinion of how you feel english should be recognized.

Thanks for completely ignoring my arguments, which would be an implicit concession if this were a tre debate. As for your proof, there are two things. The first is that you are asking me to prove a negative. This is an impossibility and requiring someone to do so is a logical fallacy. The second is that it's your claim that it's proper use of the English language, therefore you must find the evidence to support your claim. I would also suggest that you should change yor argument style so that it does not consist of posting exactly the same argument over and over and over again. If it's not correct the first time (and it wasn't), then it won't be any more correct the fiftieth time.

As for my argument. If something does not exist, then that means that there is absolutely no way to obtain information on it. Let's use your example dealing with prehistoric plants. If there is evidence that the plants existed, then they are known to exist. If the plants existed, but there is no evidence for them, then their state of existence is unknown, not the existence of the plants themselves. The existence or non-existence of the plants is not modified by what information is available about them. If the plants did not exist, then they are non-existent. However, it is still incorrect to say that the plants themselves are unknown and non-existent. The plants are non-existent only.

This example does not map into dominions however. Here we have a copper mine which does not exist prior to the random event, and does exist after the random event. After the random event, it's presence is known, and it physically exists. Before the random event it does not physically exist, and there is no information on whether it will exist at some point in the future or not. Note that the state of "no information" is not equivalent to "unknown" it is separate state where it is impossible to make any judgements about something.

[Graeme Dice]

NTJedi, will you please stop editing your Posts after you make them?

[NTJedi]

Graeme Dice
Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown.

That's just flat wrong... there are known and unknown prehistoric plants which do not exist. There is nothing in your post except for your opinions of the english language. Some are correct and some are wrong.

I only edit my Posts to correct a mistake or add an important phrase instead of creating new Posts. Update the webpage more frequently.


Once again you have no documentation for your statement. Backup YOUR STATEMENT(your words) with documentation:
"Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. "

[ March 21, 2004, 19:53: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[NTJedi]

Graeme Dice I have searched many places on the internet yet could not find anything to backup your words.

You say it's nonexistent only but thats only your opinion. And actual information and knowledge can be obtained from prehistoric plants based on many unique findings such as impressions left in stone. This is only some of the information which helps identify the plant and thus classified as known and nonexistent.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
[QB]

quote:

---

Graeme Dice
Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown.

That's just flat wrong... there are known and unknown prehistoric plants which do not exist.

---

If the plants do not exist, then there is no information on them, so your statement that they can be known of unknown is nonsensical.

There is nothing in your post except for your opinions of the english language. Some are correct and some are wrong.

My post is not "opinion". It is a clear explanation of how the language works on this issue. Since you have not pointed out which parts are wrong, and have completely ignored my arguments I am quite happy to accept your concession that you are wrong about this issue.

I only edit my Posts to correct a mistake or add an important phrase instead of creating new Posts. Update the webpage more frequently.

Editing your own Posts is a despicable debating tactic, and the fact that you do so shows what a useless person you are. I should not have to check your Posts multiple times just to make sure that you aren't changing their content.

Once again you have no documentation for your statement. Backup YOUR STATEMENT(your words) with documentation:
"Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. "

The evidence has already been provide in this very thread. I suggest you read and understand the latest post by Jaif.

[jaif]

"If something does not exist, then that means that there is absolutely no way to obtain information on it."

Of course you can; you can derive information through deduction or induction. Not all knowledge is experience.

Which is a sad thing, oft-times.

-Jeff