Steve Gagne

Robert I don't know what you mean by "his organization". The official campaign has only a few dozen people working on it. And they are not responsible for most of the buzz. Nice people, but they can't even get their act together enough to fill completely or to mail out paid-in-full brochure orders for/to campaigners on a timely basis. But there are over 84,000 volunteers (at last count), self-organized through Meetup-dot-com, who have essentially hijacked his campaign, and are portraying it as a run for each person's personal platform -- there are constitutionalists, libertarians, sound-money people, law'n'order types, 9-11 truthers, LEAP supporters, anti-tax people, pro-national sovereignty/anti-UN/anti-NWO/anti-one-world government types, anti-Fed/anti-CFR/anti-Bilderburg/anti-Trilateral Commission/anti-Bohemian Grove/anti-Rothschild/anti-Rockefeller types, pro-peace people, open-border people, closed-border people, anti-fascist/anti-corporate types, capitalists, free-trade people, pro-life people, states-rights people, gun-rights people, property-rights people, anti-Patriot Act people, pro-Civil Rights people, MUFON types, historians, Catholic Christians, Jews, Zionists, even some Objectivists. And then there are the certifiable nut cases, like the Republican Liberty Caucus (their PAC is headed by Ron Paul himself). But every single one of these people believes that Dr. Paul is speaking to and for them. It is estimated that there will be over 100K volunteers by the time of the Florida primary, and nearly a quarter of a million by the time the general presidential election occurs. But none in the Meetup groups is directed by campaign headquarters; these are true grassroot efforts. It is how a $4.3 million "Money Bomb" was raised from over 37,000 individuals in one day; it is why there were planes and boats and trolleys at the CNN/YouTube debates, filled with volunteers (dwarfing the support of other candidates); it is why there will now be a Ron Paul Blimp traveling around the country from now till the primaries; it is why there will be another "Money Bomb" fundraiser on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party (December 16). None of this is directed by official campaign headquarters. Now, as far as "sucking up" goes, each of these supporters has his own beliefs, own standards, own values, and trying to get any particular group of them work together is like trying to herd cats. So how exactly does one "suck up" to himself? [And should anyone doubt the point of a North American Union, using NAFTA and the SPP as a basis for it, and creating a new currency, the Amero, to replace the U.S. dollar, I would refer you to The Late Great U.S.A.by Dr. Jerome Corsi, as well as Vicente Fox's recent comments that he and President Bush were planning exactly that, a North American Union, in all of their NAFTA/SPP negotiations. I also refer you to this graphic, and ask if there is subterfuge being used to finance this project on Route 35 with our tax dollars, surreptitiously:

Here is my Fear. Is Ron Paul channeling Neville Chamberlain? Sometimes, the only defense, is offense. Ba'al Chatzaf Bob You misread Dr. Paul. When the Iraqi invasion was first proposed, Dr. Paul sought moral and legal justification for a constitutionally-provided congressional Declaration of War, in order to empower the President to use all necessary force to start and finish the military actions there. President Bush and the rest of congress weaseled out of it, turning it into another "multilateral police action" where inadequate force was used, and the battle now will never end, i.e., it is just another perpetual war, the tool of a tyrant. The war in Iraq has become nothing more than political theatre where the tickets are paid for with the blood of American soldiers.

Ummm.....Michael.......pssst....I live in an area 6 miles from McVeigh's original home here in Florida, an area permeated with Christian fundamentalist types, and with whom I share much common ground. Part of that common ground is this: McVeigh was no Christian. His position is seen as a (possibly brainwashed) godless government patsy in the line of Ruby Ridge-WTC I-Waco-OK City-Flight 800-USS Cole-IIBT-WTC II-Afghanistan-Iraq-Burma, i.e., the elitist political program. Perpetual terror for perpetual war: perpetual war for perpetual power. And though the Church as a collection of collectivist institutions has had (more than) its share of powermongering, that has nothing to do with what McVeigh did, nor with what individual Christians believe. Even if someone associates with a racist group called "Christian Identity", does that make it Christian? Or to put it another way, if I (hypothetically) started to call my approach "Theistic Christian Objectivism", would that make it Objectivism? Does calling make it so? No. It doesn't. What makes it so is properly identifying what it is you are focusing on, identifying the relevant characteristics for the type of object you are observing, and guaranteeing by observation that there is ONE EGG of these relevant characteristics in the present instance, to allow identification between the specific object and your concept of it. In your equation mcveigh = christian, you have not done this. So the Christian leadership, though sharing your (and my) horror at the bestiality of mcveigh's actions, have no moral responsibility to repudiate in this case; your chosen example is irrelevant.

Why do the French like only one egg? Because, for a Frenchman. one egg is un oeuf. (Barbara's going to excommunicate me again now -- I can sense it.) Sincerement, Étienne Antoine Gagné dít Belavance dela Frésnàye

From Wikipedia: Also from Wiki: And again from Wiki: And finally, from Wiki But you say it "was too Christian and did not have the balance". Somehow I get the impression you may be reading more into it than you're reading out of it. But at least you're in good company. Give a Bible to a fundamentalist Christian and he'll do the same thing.

CNN Dirty Tricks With Wolf on Ron Paul Posted by: "Anson" interpolarize@yahoo.com interpolarize Fri Oct 5, 2007 7:19 pm (PST) CNN Dirty Tricks With Wolf B.In The Situation Room Posted October 5th, 2007 by Kevin@HarperRealty SEE VIDEO AT BOTTOM OF PAGE: http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Will_5_milli..._more_1004.html I remember after I watched the Wolf Blitzer interview yesterday I felt like Dr. Ron was off his game. What happened I thought? I study subliminal advertising so I watched again looking for subliminal messages and what I saw was shocking. Words such as Darfur Match, Naked Woman, KKK, Not Join, Marked, "deal with noo", fire, accident were prominently featured in the backround as Ron was being interviewed. Coincidence? I don't think so. Nothing on that set was happenstance. The backround was designed to elicit a negative subconscious response from the viewer and in my opinion it worked and should be guarded against in the future. SEE CNN's The Situation Room, broadcast on October 4, 2007 http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Will_5_milli..._more_1004.html Scroll down to the video. When CNN camera goes to Ron, hit pause and read the words on the screen behind him. Future interviewers should be put on notice we are aware and watching. Bookmark/Search this post with: http://dailypaul.com/node/2933

Paper trail. But if one is going to print stuff why not use a paper ballot in the first place? Ba'al Chatzaf Bob -- What this guy Jim Condit is talking about is that these systems produce no paper trails. What has been happening is that an expected outcome is announced for a particular election ahead of time. Then when the election occurs, exit polls show an entirely different set of numbers. But then the votes are "counted", and voila, the results match what was "predicted" before the voting occurred. But there's a problem...the "actual" numbers read from the machine and reported to the public don't match the actual count of people voting. (e.g., It looks like at least 40% of the votes from the last Iowa straw poll went missing.) And a "recount" consists of verifying that these skewed figures were read correctly from the machine, since there is no audit trail of the actual votes. As I mentioned to Chris, this guy has already documented how the same thing happened in 1988 and 1996. steve

Actually this guy is more concerned with the 88 & 96 elections, when so called "moderate" repubs took the nominations rather than the conservative candidates. What we ended up with was Bush sr. & Clinton.

This is a letter from someone who has been on the topic since forever.

Apparently so.

But Oswald was in Mexico City with ME that day. We were planning the next memorial of the loss of the Titanic. It had that humongous shipment of Hellman's Mayonaise on board, bound for Mexico when it sank. Such a great loss to the Mexicans, it's why they memorialize Sinko da Mayo. :homestar: Welcome to the S.S. Homestarrunner-dot-com. I'm your captain, Homestar Runner...

Richard Nixon proposed both in 1969, but everyone was too busy criticizing the war to notice. So the democrat congress sliced & diced his proposals till all we got was Social Security taking over all the local welfare rolls for the aged, blind, and disabled. (the "AABD Conversion"), which doubled the paperwork and the number of bureaucrats needed to run the programs. Also provided some nifty cover for the bureaucrats to fleece the system. As a welfare bureaucrat in my county (early-mid 70's), I took part in an investigation that uncovered $10's of millions of welfare fraud -- more than the entire yearly county budget. Turns out that 84% of the fraud was by welfare department employees opening & certifying their own cases. Talk about a blank check. Of course, my boss had to stifle the investigation when he found it was going to interfere with his political ambitions.

Bob If you (and Michael) don't stop this I'm gonna lose it. :hyper: Steve p.s. Congrats on your reward.

No. It was a cheap shot. Mea Culpa! Sometimes I just cannot help myself. When they announced Habemus Pappam with Benny 16, I responded with Seig Heil! I guess the fact that Benny 16 was a Hitler Youth sticks in my craw. I am not generally anti-Catholic even though I had the shit beaten out of me by Catholic bullies (when I was a kid). You see, I personally killed Christ, or so they said. Even so, I should not keep holding a grudge. Shame on me double. I should have more self control. Ba'al Chatzaf Bob -- Funny. Growing up, I got the shit beaten out of me for being an atheist. Then I grew up & after some changes became a pentecostal preacherman. When I finally followed what I knew I was supposed to do & converted to catholicism (to make my wife happy), Pope John Paul II died. Guess it killed him to have me a catholic. Maybe if I hadn't he'd still be alive. Naaaaahhh...... But he was the only one who could make it possible for me. Oh well. At the time JPII died, I really felt concerned that "the Rat" was going to be named Pope. I had the same response you did. But after some deep thought and meditation (Xians call it prayer), this was the answer I got:

Chris In my salad days, when I accepted the whole objectivist/libertarian lines more consistently, I believed in the benefits of the free flow of goods and services, and the total freedom of anyone to associate with anyone they choose. This works all fine and dandy provided the society is made up only of rational adults, but as a matter of fact, it isn't. And you can't base the application of your principles on woulda-coulda-shoulda-and-if-the-queen-had-balls-she'd-be-king. It doesn't work. If you try to do that, you end up believing in a eutopia myth, similar to the communist concept of the "end of history", that is, their end of the historical hegelian dialectic, in which the state "just withers away". It's not gonna happen. So you're left with a bunch of wreckage of human lives, for which a blind application of your (my) principles is responsible, and the people responsible (you and me) refusing to accept responsibility. I see this as a repetitive motif in human history, and I don't see objectivism or libertarianism as being immune from it. Great. We're turning the only philosophical foundations for a free productive society into a justification for parasitism, gang warfare, slavery and human trafficking. Just what we need. =============== BTW, is there a synopsis of the seminar available online?

Merlin, Does non-metric topology use any units? Michael Yes, "unit" meaning "member of a set", but not meaning "a basis of measurement". I comment about Rand's ambiguous use of "unit" in the 2nd link in msg #198. Using Topoi one can even eliminate set theory. I suppose elements of a set would correspond roughly to Michael's "units". But even those can be made to go away. The fact that any mathematical theory has objects and relations means they constitute units in a trivial sense. Anything expressible in some sort of human language or another has units, so mathematics is not special in that sense. Ba'al Chatzaf Bob, can you point me at a book on that subject? Even so, the answer is still 476. That's how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I mean, how many times have you advocated for your Reality Lite viewpoint, and not insisted on it here? If you want to discuss how we get mental content, then you don't discuss math, you don't discuss physics, you don't discuss set theory, you don't discuss Aristotle. "Popper said...." "Aristotle said......" "Rand said....." "Plato said...." "J.S.Mill said......" but not one of these people did anything but hypothesize in the absence of evidence. What would YOU say? Experimental psychology is the scientific field that actually identifies how we get our mental content, how we do concept formation: i.e., learning. And it is not so verbal-centric that it ignores the 2-year pre-verbal period of learning we all go through from 5 months of gestation onward, wherein we acquire concepts such as "me-feel" (focus), "me"-"not-me" ("identity"), "me-do"-"not-me-do" ("causation"), "not-me-do"-"me-feel" ("pain/pleasure principle"), etc., etc., etc. It is because all these essential "axiomatic" concepts are learned, are formed, are inferred, at the pre-verbal level that later definitions appear circular or to tend toward infinite regression. You just can't remember how you got where you are, so you make it up as you go. The late experimental psychologist Robert Gagne (1916-2002, not an immediate relative) isolated 5 different types of learning, and proposed a process for applying the nine necessary conditions for learning (in the form of instruction -- his theories in learning have been applied to the military, kindergartens, home study programs, etc., with great success). From his work we find that the simplest answer to the question of the origin of mental content is, "It is learned." Though in some respects simplistic, based on postulation rather than evidence, and showing signs of what I have called elsewhere "knowledge stubs", Ayn Rand's hypotheses concerning concept formation echo significant parts of what has been theorized by Gagne et al. And if these principles are taken seriously, one realizes that our "knowledge" is the experienced concrete, generalized and integrated with what we have known before. This is learning, this is concept formation. It makes foolish any assertions about distinctions in types of "induction", because it's all the same thing. And there is no guarantee of automatic infallability. I suspect that would be the type of answer you would want, were you to be consistent to the principles you've advocated here.

What is wrong with zero population growth? Or with a declining population? In many societies, the young economically support the old. In the USA, there is the social security system - in which funds paid by those working today go to support those now retired. In China, the young send money to their parents. In either case, a declining population means a declining ratio young/old which means fewer people supporting more. Since it may be necessary to avoid prolonged discussion on the subject: The above paragraph is not to be taken as an endorsement of these economic arrangements and all that accompanies them - merely a reflection on current reality. Alfonso Which, as it turns out, is the real reason for the "open borders" movement and the 20-30 million illegal immigrants the current administration wants to make instant citizens. Due to the American Holocaust of abortion, over 47 million people who would have been born in the past generation under other circumstances, and over 120 million in the next generation, will never be. That's 167 million taxpayers, gone, poof, into thin air, and their physical remains sold as dog food. That's why the politicians think we need a massive infusion of new taxpaying citizens, and it doesnt matter if they speak english, it doesnt matter if they're educated -- because the next generation will be, at our expense, it doesnt matter if they believe in the American way or capitalism, or freedom, or anything at all, because by that time, as far as the politicians are concerned, we'll all be dead. That's the great ideal -- a new generation of milch cows, to pay our social security, and after that we die, and what we leave behind is their problem. Free trade, it's a beautiful thing.

The answer is 476.

Back in the 60's Atherton Press compiled a series of articles on this subject, on natural regulation of animal populations. Several writers surveyed known animal populations over the previous hundred years or so, and noticed a pattern that appeared to be malthusian, in that an incremental increase in resources appeared to trigger an exponential increase in populations. After shooting sky high, the population would outstrip resources, destroy their environment, and fall to a bare subsistence level, far below the previous stasis level, until the environment recovered. The population would then have a chance to return to its previous stasis level. The population growth curves actully looked like a human heartbeat as represented by an EKG. (Of course if the environment was taxed beyond recovery, it resulted in the creature's extinction.) During that time everyone and his brother-in-law was advocating drastic measures for the supposed "overpopulation" that was happening in human society. Of course, nothing of the sort was happening; at the time it was just over-concentrations of population in a few pockets where the people with the biggest mouths lived. But I took the bait and started to figure out what the result would be if the then-current population projections were accurate. What I came up with (in 68) was this: that in 300 years, every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth could have 6 acres of land for their own exclusive use and possession. At the time I was making these calculations, it took nearly an acre of land to produce all the products needed for an individual; I projected that by that time, technological advance would reduce that requirement to under a 1/4 of an acre, most of it renewable. That's it. Of the 6 acres for each individual, 5-3/4 acres would be virtually unused. Nearly 96% of the earth's land surface would be empty under theoretical "overpopulation" conditions. And that isn't even happening. The problem now is that, compared to the projections, the world is virtually uninhabited; the resources are just being handled so badly.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings us back to Bill's point. Now we're probably going to have to split this into several seperate discussions: 1) Morality in an imperfect world, and 2) How to make the imperfect world more perfect, and 3) Errors in our own understandings. The first point concerns the the compromises we all make (including Greenspan) in order to work in a world full of immoral people, institutions, and expectations. The second concerns the methodology we might use to obviate those aspects of living in our current mixed economy that occasion us to make those compromises -- definitely a seperate topic. The third concerns our own misunderstandings concerning principles and applicability. I think I should start with the last one first. There are a number of implicit expectations on our internal wish-lists that we have hung on various statements by others, concerning rights, responsibilities, role of government, etc. But there are some points are made explicit elsewhere that contradict our understandings in this discussion. Firstly, the Declaration of Independence, as worded and approved by the Founders, explicitly abandoned Paine's "life, liberty, and property" for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", stating that rights exist only in a state of action, not in regard to an object itself. Thus the commonsense definition of private property ownership is NOT part of the this nation's foundation document. That doesn't mean we cannot make it part of the future, but it definitely is not out of our national past. Because of this crucial difference in understanding regarding property, the national impetus held that, whereas you could not tax a man's person, nor his freedoms, you could, on the other hand tax agricultural products, which increased, not solely by man's efforts, but grew by the "Grace of God", and was thus not man's property but God's. And the common religious tradition at that time was that the wayfarer, the widowed, the orphaned, the homeless, the halt, the lamed, all had a claim on any excess created in this manner, i.e., by the "Hand of God." Furthermore, manufactured goods were made of the agricultural products and natural resources discovered in the land. These products were seen as subject to not only the claims made on agricultural products, but also to a societal claim on "privileged activities", activities that would not have existed but for the producer's relation to society -- this claim being called "the excise". This is the basis of recognizing taxation in the past. If you wish to dispose of the myth, you must at least postulate a principle of similar mythic impact, or be left with an inherently self-contradictory principle of government smack dab in the middle of your philosophy. Secondly, in her discussion of the relation between the right of self-defense and government, AR emphasized a point that is being soft-pedaled here. The state is a corporate entity to whom we surrender our right to initiate retaliation WITHIN A SPECIFIC LIMITED GEOGRAPHIC AREA. Note that this must needs be a unitary enterprise (see her discussion re: "competing governments"), and does not constitute surrendering our right of self defense. Because of this necessity (of the government being a unitary entity), it must regard actions against itself as a "threat", thus assuming its own institutional sense of self defense, a right-in-action, of initiating action against perceived threats. There is nothing in Objectivist theory that provides any guarantee that the state, resting within its powers, will restrain itself in exercising this; 100% taxation ("tribute" or serfdom) could quickly become the order of the day. But it is because the state can do this, with none to oppose, that the powers of government must be strictly limited by the rule of law, under the control of civil authority. Thus civil authority is there, not to "validate" or "enforce" taxation (institutionalized theft), but to sharply limit it. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." So our theoretical spin has got to change if we want to get this right. (oops wife says I gots to go.) As far as Morality in an imperfect world, remember that "I owe no debt of morality to those who would treat me immorally." If I am facing an essentially irrational situation, do not expect my actions to make sense according to your standards. As far as making it a more perfect world, O'ism has a long way to go, adequately answering questions of "how" in human society, before it will be mature enough to guide society cleanly. (Telling people that they are irrelevant isn't very productive.) It will have to recognize and embrace the cultic and mythic aspect of human belief systems, to answer societal man's needs, without closing off growth. (A la David Kelley "T&T" rather than "I am AR's spiritual heir" LP.) Good manners wouldn't hurt, either. steve

No, globalism is not "one of the most powerful forces for liberty", it is the process of indebting every nation in the world, every man, woman, and child, to the IMF, World Bank, and other international banking organizations so they can suck the lifeblood, every drop of wealth, out of every human being on the face of the planet. Once we are all on that treadmill, the debts are structured so that repayment schedules are always greater than the resources available to repay them, so that they can never be repaid: perpetual debt, perpetual servitude. This is a recipe for disaster, and its end result is first, chaos, next, war, and then, tyranny. I suggest that this is the opposite of what you wish to accomplish.

"Nudge, Nudge, Think, Think" INDEED! Say no more! Say no more!

not to mention the clarinet line from stravinsky's rites of spring (third movement) being used as the theme music for the twilight zone

RTTYUZYUWVZCZC 211730Z Y 20SEP07 Fm: Someone or Other, not an approved "authority" on anything ~ No. ~ Give me an 'authoritative' professional philosopher's or logician's book quote re the synonymity (synonymosity? synonymy?). THEN, and only then, I'll be ~ You apparently missed my point: they never were identified as such anywhere (what logic text on 'sets' mentioned 'concepts'?); instead, a 'bait-and-switch' mental con-game was used there to seduce one into thinking such. Think of all arguments about 'sets' with the term 'concept' instead; like, what does an 'empty concept' mean? LLAP J:D John Though I usually agree with what you say, I have to say I have to go beyond Bob on this one. Before explaining myself, I will make some personal references : When I was a child, I had an "educational toy", a "game" called "WFF'n'PROOF". It was something like a dice game, but instead of having numbers on the dice, it had "p". "q", "r", "s", etc., representing various hypothetical propositions, axioms, etc. The point of the game was to learn to form a "WFF" (pronounced "WOOF"), which stands for a "Well-Formed Formula." Advanced levels even played against a timer, as in chess. Once you had formed your formula, you were required to present a logical "proof" as to why it was a "WFF." This was one of my earlier exposures to symbolic logic. A few years went by, and while I learned set theory in school, my father developed the first college-level courses in Fluidics, the study of fluid-powered machine logic. (He's the one who built the motor I told you about, Bob -- first, a prototype at home, then a fully functional one in the lab at work,) This course was developed at the time of the first Earth Day and all, was being hailed as a potential replacement for the inherently self-destructive technologies based in magnetoelectricity and fossil fuels. I was the "alpha tester" for the fluidics course, and learned boolean logic in the process. As well as being the "guinea pig" in that learning experiment, I also got to study learning as a a psycholgy subject in college. At the time, the psych department was pure skinnerian, which helps eliminate a lot of the mystical crap. It also pegged its hopes on the Stimulus-Integration-Response behavioural paradigm, which, when expanded with the Feedback Loop concept, becomes a viable model for both describing and directing human learning (though a little heavy on the reductionism). I then became aware of AR's books, and found that this learning paradigm was essentially the same as her descriptions of human concept formation. And also compatible with any workable definition of empirical induction. Between tinkering with the computer club timeshare dialups over the years, and finally buying one of the early TRS-80's, I stayed involved with computers. Later on I taught myself to become a software engineer: programming (with soldering iron in hand) in Assembler and 'C', creating my own logical constructs, and in general, playing God. Now a number of years ago, there was a movie of a Tom Clancy "semi-true" cold war thriller starring Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman. The premise was a callup to US Navy nuclear submarine duty at the time of the soviet empire collapse. Gene Hackman as nuke sub commander gets orders to counter a rogue soviet general, and to start WW III. Meanwhile his comm system goes down, and he gets a partial message, one that is not properly "formatted,", ordering him to stand down. Because the message is incomplete he is forbidden by Navy security policy to act on the message. His subordinate Denzel Washington cannot follow these orders (to start a nuclear war) in good conscience, and starts a mutiny. Blah blah blah. Action tension death noise. Blah blah blah. Many moons before this movie was made, I had developed secure comm systems for the US Navy (and NATO) that included the capability of determining whether incoming messages were properly "formatted". The systems I developed ($8K for a system that did all their $1/4-million NAVMACS systems did!) worked off of "fuzzy logic" natural language pattern-recognition algorithms (since "incorporated" into ECHELON), with a user-selected "acceptable" error rate of anywhere from 0% - 80%. Yes, I could accurately pick out a message with an inherent 80% error rate. (These systems were used at land installations and shipboard, but were prohibited from submarines due to their use of **noisy** dot-matrix graphics printers.) If they'd used my system, they never would have had that problem on the submarine... So here I got this threaded multitasking dynamic timeslice realtime event-driven system (not to mention "butterfly" interrupts and a system timer circuit configured as 12-bar blues written in 3/4 time -- yes I had to reinvent the wheel, and IT WAS NOT APPRECIATED), working off a "tri-state" logic -- "YES"/"NO"/MAYBE" (or "SORTOF" or "DUNNO" or "WAKEMEUPWHENYOUMAKEUPYOURMIND"). Try explaining THAT to a military man, or putting it into DOD documentation format. Had to turn off over 12,000 internal grammar-checking rules (boiled down to a set of 4 logical constructs) just because they couldn't understand the explanation of automatic data stream pattern editing. Oh well. Their loss. The point of this is that I understand concept = set. And I think that Ayn Rand said the same thing, without using the teminology. It's certainly how I utilize the "concept" -- a "concept" is the hierarchical set that subsumes percepts of all concretes identified with having a particular (set of) shared characteristic(s), as well as other concepts. (With one proviso: that every set is a member of itself, thus avoiding self-referential paradoxes.) The law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are thereby upheld: a concrete cannot both be and not be the member of its set(s) at the same time. You asked, in reference to an "empty set", what would an "empty concept" be: it is a label without referent in reality. I don't see the problem here. You would understand the term "stolen banana", but find the term "stolen concept" meaningless? I don't think so. vty Steve NNNNN

Two? That's all I've got!