>
>Keith Knapp was probably misquoted, but here goes anyway...
>
 MB> You must be one of those who think that there had to be a First Message.
 MB> There is no concrete evidence that there ever was such a thing as a
 MB> First Message in the first place, and unless someone is able to observe
 MB> such a thing, then there can be no proof at all of its existing.  ;-)
 KK> Aha!  Post-Modernism rears its ugly head!  All we need to do is
 KK> perform a careful word count and analysis of recent archives.
 KK> As the word count changes, working backwards in time, it will slowly
 KK> converge on the probable content of the First Message.  Of course,
 KK> we can never know the _exact_ nature of the FM event, but in science
 KK> you have to accept the fact that statistical and probabilistic
 KK> knowledge is sometimes all you can know.
 
 That's only a statistical and probablistic theoretical assessment of
 what we can know scientifically about the possible existence of the
 First Message, probably, at least, as far as I know, I think.
 KK> There are some cranks who claim that the FM could have been just
 KK> something like "Hey Arnie, did you get this?"  Even creationists
 KK> reject this because surely, they say, the FM must have had more
 KK> meaning.  But science rejects it because those who profess it
 KK> do not use big Latin words to name things.
 I just want to know who Arnie is, and whether or not he got it.
 
 
... How do you know when you've run out of invisible ink?
--- GEcho 1.11++TAG 2.7c
---------------