On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 01:29:33 +0200, Alessandro wrote in message <20180731012933.04fec274@ayu.localdomain>:
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 at 09:39:14 +0200 > Arnt Karlsen <a...@iaksess.no> wrote: > > [...] > > > ..a luxury we can afford once we know which trick the enemy is > > going to play on us. Meanwhile we're lucky if we waste no more > > than 2/3 of our ammo on our bad guesses. The cost of getting on > > with life. ;o) > > Precisely because we barely have enough resources to concentrate on > real-life threats, it's stew-peed wasting a lot of time and effort on > hypothetical ones that border on the paranoia rather than residing > within the range of possibilities. ..either way, we are going to waste "ammo" on our bad guesses. Deal with "it" (them bad guesses) and move on. -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
