Unknown magic sites in starting provinces?

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.

I don't apologize to idiots who refuse to admit that they are wrong.

�1] PRINCIPAL AND AGENT - LIABILITY OF AGENT TO THIRD PERSON -CONTRACTS IN NAME OF PRINCIPAL - NONEXISTENT PRINCIPAL. Where an agent for a nonexistent principal enters into a contract in the name of such principal, and all parties to the contract know the principal to be nonexistent,��. �

This is not regarding a physical object, and so couldn't prove your point even if the words said what you think they do. This is merely a case where you have a non-existent entity that everyone agrees is non-existent. Thus it's non-existence is known. The above is a question of whether the object is known to be non-existent. Not whether the object is non-existent or not.

�If President Bush "touted 100,000 jobs more logging on federal lands could bring to the Northwest" that are now known to be nonexistent���

Yes, the jobs do not exist, and there is information on their non-existence, so people can agree that they do not exist.

This is in complete contrast to your claim, where there is no information on whether the copper mine exists, and in fact, according to yor examples above, the only thing you could say is that it is known to be non-existent.

At the start of the game the programmer would know the copper mine to be nonexistent. The copper mine however would remain unknown and nonexistent to all other players.

The copper mine does not exist until the random event causes it to exist. The programmer does not have the knowledge to tell you whether the copper mine will exist at some point in the future. Thus there is no way to say that the mine is "unknown". It simply doesn't exist.

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.

Once again you are dodging the point. There is no information whatsoever about prehistoric plants that have no evidence of their existence. You are claiming that something which is _known_ to be non-existent, such as a copper mine before the event creates it, is actually unknown. You're trying to claim that adding the word unknown is useful, when it instead adds no information whatsoever.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
More Court Documentation:

You will let me know when court cases bear any resemblance to the existence of objects in the physical world?

"..Not only is the resisting party (presumably the
patient) claiming lack of knowledge of the arbitration term, but he asks not to be prevented from litigating a consequential loss controversy that was also unknown and nonexistent at the time of contracting. Viewed in this light, the knowledge factor is ....."

Once again, that's an idea, not an object. Try and find some relevant examples.

There are hundreds of quotes using known and unknown with nonexistent.

And I have yet to see any proof showing I am wrong... besides opinions.

There might be hundreds of quotes, but not one of them will be relevant to the question at hand. You haven't seen any "proof", because no such "proof" is needed. The answer to the question is obvious to all but your deluded mind.

[NTJedi]

Graeme Dice
besides your weak opinion what actual proof have you provided ZERO.


The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.


Also the fact that these phrases are used in court documentation shows the phrase is correct and I am right. I have given actual proof in many different ways showing things which are nonexistent can be either known or unknown.

[ March 21, 2004, 18:54: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Graeme Dice
besides your weak opinion what actual proof have you provided ZERO.

I've provided my proof. It's called "the difference between an idea and a physical object".

The prehistoric plants example is one of the best examples since during the present they are nonexistent yet depending on the specimen can be both known or unknown. The copper mine is very much the same except that it qualifies as being in the future and not the past.

Once again you are completely and utterly incorrect. The plants with no evidence that once existed are not non-existant. Their evidence is non-existant, but they are not. The evidence is an idea, it is possible to be non-existant and unknown. A physical object cannot have these characteristics, since if it is non-existant, there is no information about it. It can be unknown whether the object is non-existant or not, but that is a completely different phrase from something being "unknown and non-existant", which is a meaningless phrase.

Also the fact that these phrases are used in court documentation shows the phrase is correct and I am right.

No, it shows that you are not smart enough to figure out the difference between an idea and a physical object.

[NTJedi]

by Graeme Dice
Once again, that's an idea, not an object.

So ideas can be nonexistent as known or unknown... but an pretend copper mine from a computer game cannot?


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

PROVE TO ME THAT something NON-EXISTENT cannot be known or unknown. Certainly you can find some documentation to back up your weak words.


A search on Google for "cannot be known or unknown" returns with nothing... you can guess why. Yet I have found so many different phrases on the internet using nonexistent with known and unknown.

[ March 21, 2004, 19:20: Message edited by: NTJedi ]

[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.