Who remembers Herostratus? And Netrebka? - page 6
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
That's it. I'm off.
>> (on your share?)
Take it, I'll be joining your ranks soon :)
I'll tell you about "unreliable" and about the concept. It's not going to be pretty. Interpreters...
A self-taught interpreter translated "logos" from Greek as "word". Now instead of "In the beginning was the thought" (or knowledge) you know what. Maybe life would have been different for us in the post-Kievskaya Rus area. Maybe we would think first, and then speak. And not to say - do.
The third Semitic somehow got it right - "The Inexplicable, before creating the world, first thought it up". Not flubbed, as you and I do here.
===
Ok. You can look at everything from different angles. And degrees! Bazinga!!! ))))
Should we really get some? Dinner's coming up and all...
It's hard to disagree with you, I've also noticed a couple of times a discrepancy, first there is thought and it is it that creates everything,
but you have to admit that the slogan "In the beginning was the word" is a bit more familiar.
although "in the beginning there was an idea, the idea was two bytes" is even a bit innovative :o)
And I think that elephant is wrong - not real. On that branch...
Rubber-blown!
Sorry I didn't notice straight away, I think it's possible to raise, not possible to try to raise.
Ah, the Moose, I know it's strong to bark at an elephant(maybe not strictly according to the text, I'm quoting from memory, but it was a long time ago).
Isn't it an assessment of the importance of the Moose? And what led to that conclusion, the public contact of the Moose and the Elephant.
If you polemicise with a moron like me you automatically raise my rating to yours. :о)
The moussa says so about herself. Well, who would believe it?! :)
And in response, the same popular opinion: the sun looks into the cesspools, but it doesn't get dirty. :) In general, the way of exchange proverbs and aphorisms is futile, there will always be an authoritative opinion that will contradict another authoritative opinion.
One more point. The animal situation described in the fable is "extended" to human relations. It is difficult to imagine that somebody (for example me as an elephant) would try to approach me (in the role of the moussa) and I would get smacked right away. That is, a squealing little beast would get a boot on its spine in life. And it is not reflected in the fable, it is the most probable course of events. ;)
That is, what this fable teaches is not clear. It would have made more sense if the elephant had simply stepped on his face. As it happens.
It's hard to disagree with you, I've also noticed a couple of times that there's a discrepancy - it's the thought that comes first and it does everything,
but you have to admit that "in the beginning was the word" is a bit more familiar.
Though "in the beginning there was an idea, the idea was 2 bytes" is rather innovative :o)
I agree - or rather, I didn't disagree. I mean the installation. No way, about the installation. About the whole concept! Completely changes the approach to the matter. All the more so because in the Greek philosophical usage "Logos" is not a "word" but a "thought". And I strongly suspect that in the famous bestseller of all time it was used in this sense. Especially since later religion interprets it that way.
>> Okay. As translated, so translated. Of course, it would have been nice to rip the translator's balls off, but what now. So we live... according to...
That's what the moussa says about herself. Well, who'd believe it?! :)
And in return, the same popular opinion: the sun looks in the cesspools, but it doesn't get dirty. :) In general, the way of proverbs and aphorisms exchange is futile, there is always an authoritative opinion that contradicts another authoritative opinion.
One more point. The animal situation described in the fable is "extended" to human relations. It is difficult to imagine that somebody (for example me as an elephant) would try to approach me (in the role of the moussa) and I would get smacked on the spot. That is, a squealing little beast would get a boot on its spine in life. And it is not reflected in the fable, it is the most probable course of events. ;)
That is, what this fable teaches is not clear. It would be more instructive if the elephant stepped on the moussa. As it happens.
The fable shows the problem of the onlooker in all its glory; the moussa just yaps and the onlooker draws wrong conclusions.
The king is played by his entourage, but if you know the reaction of the onlooker you can make some conclusions.
If you know that the crowd will start to buy on the sudden jump in price, for example 20 points, then in order to sell at higher prices it makes sense to buy out all bids within 20 points and sell everything when the buying avalanche starts.
In the fable, the problem of the bystander comes out in all its glory, the mosey just yaps and the bystander draws the wrong conclusions.
In the fable, the problem of the bystander comes out in all its glory, the moussa is just yapping and the bystander draws the wrong conclusions.
The king is played by his entourage, going on, if you know the reaction of a bystander you can lead him to certain conclusions.
For example, if you know that the crowd will start to buy on the sudden jump in price by 20 points, it makes sense to buy out all bids in the range of 20 points and sell everything when the buying avalanche starts.
Krylov is already hiccuping and studying MT4
>> And you think we're just making a fool of ourselves :o)