[at-l] The question's answer

> Thank you all for the answers and the questions. Of course, they were
> all wrong, and all right. I didn't want to know the answer, only if you
> knew the answer. If you know the answer, you therefore must know the
> question. If you don't know the answer, you may, however, still know the
> question. If you don't know the question, you could still know the
> answer. Though, that isn't likely. Of course, the answer to what you
> know to be the question (if, in fact, you know the question) may or may
> not be the same as someone else's known answer, whether the same
> question or not. The inverted reciprical of the opposite of the
> question, if you know it, has to be negative to what the answer should
> be, if it is known. There are times, of course, that answers appear
> before the questions, making one question why the answer to the question
> that wasn't even asked can't be inverted to recipricate negatively on
> the opposite question that is being answered. This may well be. I'm not
> here to argue that. It does, however, bring us to this question: If we
> know all answers, can there really be any questions?
>
> When I get home, I'm gonna eat some ice cream.
>
> --
> Felix J. McGillicuddy
> ME-->GA 98
> "Your Move"
> http://Felixhikes.tripod.com/
>
>
>
> * From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================