Eventually what is good for me is good for all of us, and especially for OpOssy. It's only a matter of agreeing on what's good. The Opossies like to keep things under tight rules. Kris doesn't fit in their idea of management based on strict enforcement. My approach with Kris is based on a principle of freedom of action. Thinking the Opossies would blindly follow my instincts would be naive. They'll try to enforce their rules anytime based on what they think is good for them, and for me.
"nothing we can do" implies a need to change that situation, to negate it. but how do you negate that statement? not accept his behavior? him not having Mary's protection? or both?
it's as if they're saying, "Our only hope is that the path leads deeper."
but, and here's my question: "nothing we can do, our only hope" what is all this about? do about what? hope about what? it seems the answer might lie in the previously mentioned situation, to "accept his erratic behaviours as long as he has Mary's protection."
Eventually what is good for me is good for all of us, and especially for OpOssy. It's only a matter of agreeing on what's good. The Opossies like to keep things under tight rules. Kris doesn't fit in their idea of management based on strict enforcement. My approach with Kris is based on a principle of freedom of action. Thinking the Opossies would blindly follow my instincts would be naive. They'll try to enforce their rules anytime based on what they think is good for them, and for me.
MaryKTyler 2 years ago
well said mary. but i dont understand the opossy's conflict. don't they want what's best for you? why would they doubt your instincts?
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
How long can you accept his erratic behaviors? As long as I tell you to.
Now everyone cools off and we all get back work.
MaryKTyler 2 years ago
codynes
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
apparently i'm some sort of spammer...
and whats up with YT fucking up the order and hierarchy of comments? maybe i should just put my logical conundrum on the forums.
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
"nothing we can do" implies a need to change that situation, to negate it. but how do you negate that statement? not accept his behavior? him not having Mary's protection? or both?
see my confusion now?
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
lingued
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
yea i know it's confusing
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
it's as if they're saying, "Our only hope is that the path leads deeper."
but, and here's my question: "nothing we can do, our only hope" what is all this about? do about what? hope about what? it seems the answer might lie in the previously mentioned situation, to "accept his erratic behaviours as long as he has Mary's protection."
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago
going back to the opossy's statement, paraphrasing:
>There's nothing we can do unless the path leads deeper
A: There's nothing we can do
B: The path leads deeper
"A unless B" is equivalent to "A if not B", or "if not B then A": -B -> A
If the path does not lead deeper, then there's nothing we can do.
furthermore, by truth table equivalence it's the same as "if not A then B", -A -> B
If there's anything we could do, then the path must lead deeper.
DeagolTheStoor 2 years ago