++> Frank Masingill wrote to David Martorana
 ++> on  "To measure meaning"
 
 FM> Well, (grin) if "gnostic" includes SCIENCE then *I* surely don't know
 FM> what "gnostic" means!
 
     Yes you do know what "GNOSTIC"  means. *I* have been using it WRONG.
     To squeeze "science" into it, stretches the imagination some bit too
     far!
 
   FM> But, then, I also don't fathom the distinction between
   FM> knowledge and "REAL knowledge."
 
       I was referring to that which has been "accepted" as knowledge
       through history as compared against that which has been
       "satisfactorily" validated. Science has gone a long way in
       providing test mechanisms to BETTER weigh and measure (real)
       knowledge and therefore has become (to me), a quiet, yet
       pervasive force in the definition.
                            __
                            ..  ... Dave
--- Maximus/2 3.01
---------------