Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life - an Unequivicol Definition
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 166 of 374 (773467)
12-02-2015 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by AlphaOmegakid
12-01-2015 1:51 PM


Re: Mercy Me!
AlphaOmegakid writes:
But the observations come first before the modifications.
The point is that the definition ought to be able to accommodate new observations. If you define an animal as having pointed ears, what do you do when you observe one with round ears? Say it's not an animal? No. Instead, you should be leaving ear-shape out of your definition.
AlphaOmegakid writes:
All panspermia hypotheses predict life on other planets as being similar to ours.
Panspermia hypotheses are not the be-all and end-all. Science needs to consider the possibility of other forms of "life". What has already been observed is only a starting point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-01-2015 1:51 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 167 of 374 (773474)
12-02-2015 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by herebedragons
12-02-2015 12:57 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
He He!
herebedragons writes:
Your position just keeps getting stranger. Why would you put abiotic materials (which means "not biotic" or "not derived from living organisms") as the "grey" area between living and dead? That make NO sense at all.
That's OK, I about spit out my coffee when I read this!
Because that's exactly what abiogenesis is all about!
quote:
Abiogenesis (Brit.: /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1] U.S. English pronunciation: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnᵻsɪs/),[2] or biopoiesis,[3] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds.[4][5][6][7] It is thought to have occurred on Earth between 3.8 and 4.1[8] billion years ago, and is studied through a combination of laboratory experiments and extrapolation from the genetic information of modern organisms in order to make reasonable conjectures about what pre-life chemical reactions may have given rise to a living system.[9]
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia
White = living - meets ALL the criteria for living creatures. I listed my version of this list in Message 132
quote:
(1) self-contained and organized structures (2) the ability to convert chemicals into metabolic and structural components (3) the ability to regulate it's metabolism (4) the ability to grow (5a) the ability to reproduce (5b) heritable traits (6) the ability to adapt to its environment (7) the ability to respond to stimuli
Black = Non-living - meets NONE of the criteria listed above
Grey = Meets SOME of the criteria listed above, but not all of them.
Ok let's examine your "strange" ideas.
White=Living=meets all seven (7) criteria of life. OK, I will accept that. Now lets look at grey. Grey=some of the 7 criteria..anywhere from 1-6. Ok, so by those two definitions Grey is not alive which unfortunately makes it non-living. Now you and others have semantically called it "pre-life", "proto cells", "self-replicatiing molecules", and probably a whole lot of other things. But They are not alive by your own criteria. So for your model to be consistent and not self refuting, both the grey and the black are non-living. So by your criteria and model, anything less than living is non-living. Sorry to disappoint you but I had a good laugh.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by herebedragons, posted 12-02-2015 12:57 PM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by herebedragons, posted 12-02-2015 11:08 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 168 of 374 (773481)
12-02-2015 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Percy
12-02-2015 1:40 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:
By "show me the semantics" are you asking for definitions of "living" and "non-living" of a specificity that we keep telling you doesn't exist? Dogs are living, a lead block is non-living. That's pretty unambiguous. The area between is ambiguous.
Percy, you need to think this through logically. You just refuted yourself in two sentences. You just said that we cannot specifically define "living" and "non-living". Then you said specifically that a dog is "alive" and Lead is "non-living".
That's why there at least equivocating characteristics of life that allow you to somewhat discern that a dog is "alive' and a block of lead is not. But that leaves us in just as bad a position scientifically, because we have sacrificed biological science to equivocating terms. Which logically is not good either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Percy, posted 12-02-2015 1:40 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-02-2015 3:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 12-02-2015 4:07 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 169 of 374 (773482)
12-02-2015 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 3:05 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
But that leaves us in just as bad a position scientifically, because we have sacrificed biological science to equivocating terms.
Why should that be considered a sacrifice?
Which logically is not good either.
Why is it not good?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 3:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 170 of 374 (773484)
12-02-2015 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 7:59 AM


Re: Black White or Grey?
So when does a virus die?
When it is exposed to various chemicals, some of which are intentionally used by humans for that purpose. When they are targetted by the immune systems due prior infection or anti-viral vaccination.
But outside the host, is it alive or dead?
Yes.
And how about self replicating molecules? When are they dead? etc etc.? Or are they ever alive?
Those are in the gray area between living and non-living.
AOk writes:
This is the reason that we need a good unequivocal definition of life.
As a biologist, I do not see a need for a single "unequivocal definition of life", nor do I think that you will have success convincing many biologists to accept your definition.
I have asked several times before, why do you care? Why do you feel compelled to define life and why are you so insistent that biologists or other scientists adopt your definition?
Maybe, I was too quick in the semantics by using the term "dead", but you can see that the term non-living is almost a synonym of "dead".
No, I don't see that at all. Dead means no longer living. Non-living has none of the characteristics of life.
So now we (you and I) have clarified the grey area. We have categories:
(1) White=Living==>by some unequivocal definition of life
(2) Grey=Abiotic=non-living
(3) Black= Dead
This is incorrect. You and I do not agree at all.
(1) White = Living, cellular organisms
(2) Lighter Gray = some characteristics of life; DNA, RNA, replication
(3) Darker Gray= Dead, formerly living
(4) Non-living= rocks, individual elements, non-replicating molecules.
On this White, Gray, and Black scale that other people have been referring to, you have misinterpreted what they are saying. White is living and black is non-living and in between these two extremes is a gray area, a continuum, of things that exhibit some of the characteristics of life. Non-living and dead are not the same thing. As far as I can see abiotic is a synonym of non-living, but it is not a synonym of dead.
The problem I was having was everyone else in this forum was referring to the grey area as "life" (the "grey area of life").
I think they are referring to the gray area as a continuum between life and non-life. Some things like viruses and prions are in the light gray area self-replicating molecules are in the middle gray area and crystals are in the dark gray area.
This makes no sense, because every abiotic thing would be on the pathway to life which is obviously false.
I do not think anyone is saying abiotic is on a pathway to life. I consider abiotic to be non-life and thus totally black on our scale.
The reality is that most abiotic things have no chance at life, many are dead, and some have some of the characteristics of living things.
I think you have incorrectly expanded the definition of abiotic to include dead organisms and things that the rest of us consider living or almost living.
Now look at your last sentence, and consider a virus. If it is considered alive within the host cell. Then when the cell is destroyed and the virus is released again, then all life functions would be gone. It would be dead. Both abiotic and dead. This makes a lot of sense using this model. So a virus would not be in the grey area at all. It would be black.
Sorry, but I completely disagree with this. I consider the virus to be alive, but with a completely different life history from cellular organisms. I think it is a completely different life form that has evolved to take advantage of cellular organisms for metabolism and replication.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 7:59 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 4:36 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 171 of 374 (773485)
12-02-2015 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 3:05 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
AlphaOmegakid writes:
Percy, you need to think this through logically. You just refuted yourself in two sentences. You just said that we cannot specifically define "living" and "non-living". Then you said specifically that a dog is "alive" and Lead is "non-living".
*You* might need a definition to know that a dog is alive and lead is not, but no one else does.
The ambiguity lies in the middle, not at the endpoints, and in the middle is where your attempt at a definition of life fails, because anywhere you draw the line between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary, and inevitably it will be uninformed by what we do not know.
Besides, what's really interesting about the study of life isn't whether it fits some definition, but rather the details of its inner workings.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 3:05 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 4:27 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied
 Message 176 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 5:39 PM Percy has replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 172 of 374 (773488)
12-02-2015 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
12-02-2015 4:07 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Besides, what's really interesting about the study of life isn't whether it fits some definition, but rather the details of its inner workings.
Well said!
AOk, seems to be oblivious to the fact that he will have little or no luck convincing biologists to accept his narrow definition. The only reason I can see for his insistence is as some kind of argument against abiogenesis. He has cited the so-called "Law of Biogenesis" that creationists are so fond of enforcing several times in this thread.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 12-02-2015 4:07 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 173 of 374 (773489)
12-02-2015 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Tanypteryx
12-02-2015 4:02 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
tany writes:
Sorry, but I completely disagree with this. I consider the virus to be alive, but with a completely different life history from cellular organisms. I think it is a completely different life form that has evolved to take advantage of cellular organisms for metabolism and replication.
Ok, let's assume for a moment it is in the grey area, and the grey area is not a self refuted concept as already identified by the kid.(you are arguing like all the others.)
In the abiogenesis history from non-life towards life, just how did virions evolve? Evidence please? Or hypotheses please? Before any cellular life existed, what chemical mechanism causes a virion to evolve?
Or, are you saying that virions evolved after living cells evolved?
Also, you just said you believe viruses are alive which contradicts your classification of "(1) White = Living, cellular organisms". Do you want to be contradictory, or do you want to correct this?
Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : Added stuff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 4:02 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 5:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 175 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 5:35 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied
 Message 181 by Pressie, posted 12-03-2015 7:42 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 174 of 374 (773491)
12-02-2015 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 4:36 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Ok, let's assume for a moment it is in the grey area, and the grey area is not a self refuted concept as already identified by the kid.(you are arguing like all the others.)
Ok, let's assume that your understanding of a gray-scale continuum that extends from totally black to totally white is incorrect and could only be considered self-refuted by someone who defines life and non-life too narrowly.
In the abiogenesis history from non-life towards life, just how did virions evolve?
I don't know. I am not sure that viruses are part of part of the abiogenesis history of non-life to life.
Evidence please?
I don't have any, and I don't know if any exists. Research on viruses and abiogenesis may eventually show us ways that viruses originated and whether it is connected to the origin of cellular life.
Or hypotheses please?
My own personal hypothesis is that viruses arose separately from the pathway to cellular life or that they broke way from cellular life very early on. I see viruses as a completely seperate kingdom of life. Viruses may have evolved from free-living organisms that later parasitized cellular life. So maybe viruses arose separately, arose at the same time dependent on cellular life, evolved as a means of genetic exchange between early free-living cellular organisms or are just a fluke of the early synthesis of DNA and RNA.
To me, it all sounds like exciting areas of research.
Before any cellular life existed, what chemical mechanism causes a virion to evolve?
Imperfect replication of genetic material and selection (survival or non-survival) in the environment.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 4:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 175 of 374 (773492)
12-02-2015 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 4:36 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Also, you just said you believe viruses are alive which contradicts your classification of "(1) White = Living, cellular organisms". Do you want to be contradictory, or do you want to correct this?
I said I think viruses are living, but I did not say I think viruses are "living, cellular organisms."
I think viruses are living, but they are a couple small steps away from Cellular Life that we have chosen to put at one end of our continuum. You may think this is contradictory, but I think you are still trying to force us into too narrow a definition of life.
Why do you care about the definition of life so much? What is in it for you?

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 4:36 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 5:43 PM Tanypteryx has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 176 of 374 (773493)
12-02-2015 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Percy
12-02-2015 4:07 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Percy writes:
The ambiguity lies in the middle, not at the endpoints, and in the middle is where your attempt at a definition of life fails...
Exactly my definition is for the endpoint, and it should fail in the middle. Just as I have said over and over, and over again.
because anywhere you draw the line between what is living and what is not is ultimately arbitrary..
Again, your contradicting yourself, because you just said the endpoints were not ambiguous which means the line was drawn. Your having a tough time facing your own words, are you not?
and inevitably it will be uninformed by what we do not know.
I certainly hope I am "uniformed by what I do not know"! Have a great evening. See ya tomorrow....unless tomorrow is a continuum of today, which means..... well, I give up, I just can't think this illogically. It's like a virus exploding my brain cells!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Percy, posted 12-02-2015 4:07 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 7:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

  
AlphaOmegakid
Member (Idle past 2875 days)
Posts: 564
From: The city of God
Joined: 06-25-2008


Message 177 of 374 (773494)
12-02-2015 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Tanypteryx
12-02-2015 5:35 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
I know it's contradictory.
tany writes:
Why do you care about the definition of life so much? What is in it for you?
I just like to see evos twist and turn and flip in their mental gymnastics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 5:35 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-02-2015 5:58 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied
 Message 183 by Percy, posted 12-03-2015 7:58 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4344
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.9


(1)
Message 178 of 374 (773496)
12-02-2015 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 5:43 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
I know it's contradictory.
Well, no, since you misquoted me.
I just like to see evos twist and turn and flip in their mental gymnastics.
Sorry, then, since your definition is incorrect, there will be no gymnastics. Creationists just never get it.
ABE: So basically you are saying you're a troll. Good to know.
Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 5:43 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 179 of 374 (773500)
12-02-2015 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 10:21 AM


Re: self-replicating virus - again ...
You have claimed several times now that viruses can self replicate, metabolize and make proteins outside a host cell. I claim your bluffing or sadly misinformed on this. I have asked for supporting evidence to support this claim. You provided a bunch of non-relevant material.
Ah, so comprehension of parenthetical statements modifying the main statement of what is posted is also one of your problems in understanding what is said. Do I need to parse it for you?

Do you not see the difference between:
(me): viral life, which is increasingly being accepted as life forms as more is found out (self replication without host, metabolism and making of proteins used to encase it, etc), and
(you): you claim viruses can self replicate, metabolize and make proteins outside a host cell.
Perhaps I used a poor choice of wording and structure.
Scientists are increasingly accepting viruses as living, forming a fourth domain of life. This is because of what they are learning.
There are seven types of viruses:
Class 1: Double Stranded DNA Viruses
Class 2: Single-stranded DNA viruses
Class 3: Double-stranded RNA viruses
Class 4: Single-stranded RNA viruses - Positive-sense
Class 5: Single-stranded RNA viruses - Negative-sense
Class 6: Positive-sense single-stranded RNA viruses that replicate through a DNA intermediate
Class 7: Double-stranded DNA viruses that replicate through a single-stranded RNA intermediate
From an RNA world perspective, if (RNA) viruses are "fossils" of the RNA world, and RNA life, then we need to look at RNA self-replication, and we find (learn) that there are (now) several known self-replicating RNA molecules.
Molecule metabolism occurs when available raw materials are converted\combined\catalyzed into larger, more complex structures, which can then be joined in the making of a replicate. We have found (learned) that there are many additional RNA molecules known that are capable of this type of action.
From an early life perspective (before cells evolved) we need to look at how DNA evolved, and (DNA) viruses can be "fossils" of the early evolution of DNA from RNA, able to manufacture proteins to form a protective sheath against UV and other hazards to early life. We see (learn about) this occurring with the (class 1) Mimivirus when it is in a suitable ecology (which in this case is an amoebic cell, but it uses raw materials and not the cell mechanisms or structures). We can also consider cells to be mini remnants, "fossils", of a pre-cellular world. And I note that the scientists that researched the genome of this (DNA) virus seemed quite excited to call it a life form.
Does that mean that DNA viruses can be considered life, but not RNA viruses? Or is it just another matter of degree, of the gray area between living things and never living things?

Curiously, I also see that you have failed to reply to my points that show your definition fails ... (Message 142) ... just as your "reply" (Message 144) failed to address a single one of the problems .... attacking my post without addressing (eg ignoring) those problems doesn't make them go away: do I need to repost them in yellow?
Perhaps you think that discrediting my posts\definition makes your definition stronger. It doesn't.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : added details, clarity
Edited by RAZD, : correction

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 10:21 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-03-2015 10:38 AM RAZD has replied

  
herebedragons
Member (Idle past 857 days)
Posts: 1517
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009


(2)
Message 180 of 374 (773506)
12-02-2015 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by AlphaOmegakid
12-02-2015 2:39 PM


Re: Black White or Grey?
Because that's exactly what abiogenesis is all about!
That's funny, I thought we were discussing how we define life, not abiogenesis. I suspected this was a bait-n-switch.
And besides, abiogenesis doesn't state that rocks are somewhere on a spectrum between dead and alive.
Now you and others have semantically called it "pre-life", "proto cells", "self-replicatiing molecules", and probably a whole lot of other things.
That's weird, I don't remember saying that. Maybe someone hacked my account and posted those words in my name. Maybe I better change my password!
I wouldn't have said "pre-life," "proto-cells," or a "whole lot of other things" since we aren't talking about abiogenesis, but just how to define and identify life.
Grey=some of the 7 criteria..anywhere from 1-6. Ok, so by those two definitions Grey is not alive which unfortunately makes it non-living.
Except that non-living, "black" was defined as having NONE of the characteristics so the "grey" doesn't meet that definition either... so it is neither living nor non-living, but somewhere in between.
So by your criteria and model, anything less than living is non-living.
Or is it "anything more than non-living is living"??
SO if you don't accept that viruses are alive, that's fine. But it doesn't change the situation with abiogenesis. What you are doing is trying to alter the definition of life so you can use that definition to show that abiogenesis is wrong. Not a very effective move.
By the way, I am not an advocate of abiogenesis (at least not the naturalistic version). All I know is that at one time in the history of the earth there was no life and then at some point later, there was life.
HBD
Edited by Admin, : except => accept

Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca
"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 12-02-2015 2:39 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024