Can We Be Trusted?

[yahw...@gmail.com]

I can! And I hope anybody can too. Any body who's interested in private message sharing via EMAIL can send a request for my password from EMAIL by private messaging. Just tell me how you're anybody who is and any body whom may be trusted as can I and I'll respond if requested that the password should be sent for the EMAIL USERID like this USENET USERID.

http://www.mail.com
USERID:yah...@engineer.com
PASSWORD:?

Looking forward for retainers to private message sharing via EMAIL from the USENET.

http://groups.google.com
USERID:yahw...@gmail.com
FORUM:alt.anybody
FORUM:alt.internet
FORUM:talk.misc.internet
FORUM:talk.religion.misc
FORUM:alt.internet.commerce
FORUM:alt.internet.wireless
FORUM:alt.sci.physics
FORUM:sci.physics

Some of the messages in my EMAIL account won't be transferred via Google. That's why I am sending this message as best.

Good bye.

[Timothy Sutter]

yahw...@gmail.com wrote:

> I can! And I hope anybody can too.

anybody can be trusted, but expected outcomes and real outcomes may
differ.

> http://www.mail.com
> USERID:yah...@engineer.com
> PASSWORD:?

> Looking forward for retainers to private message sharing via EMAIL from the USENET.

you don't really have to give out your password to share e-mails with
anyone.

you may have suspected as much.

[Timothy Sutter]

Timothy Sutter wrote:

> yahw...@gmail.com wrote:

> > I can! And I hope anybody can too.

> anybody can be trusted, but expected outcomes
> and real outcomes may differ.

maybe i should say "actual outcomes"

in place of "real outcomes"


like, maybe, you could trust someone to hold

your iced cream cone for you, that is, if you

like iced cream cones, but, they may eat it,

unless you specify that you expect

to be able to eat it yourself.

oh i'll bet thare are numerous variations on the

difference between expected outcomes and actual outcomes.


none of which means that your trust is not well placed,

just because things didn't turn out exactly as you may have expected.


maybe you expected them to eat your iced cream cone,

and they waited and waited to give it back to you

and it melted, and the bacteria ate it.

[Timothy Sutter]

> > anybody can be trusted, but expected outcomes
> > and real outcomes may differ.

i think a person's trust is their own

and they shouldn't let anything ruin it


you don't have to expect anything

either the best of all people or the worst from all people


but you need your own personal trust to be able to trust your self


and if you let other people ruin your own trust

then, you've lost something

and you may as well sleep on cornflakes and

sit in the corner trying to catch your own thumb.


i'm sure it's difficult to say to someone who's been

"used abused and confused"


but if you let "the terrorists" totaly alter your behavior

in their image then, you've lost yourself to what may

be a false expectation.



and that's probably why that one kid says;


"if someone presses you for your shoes,

give them your coat as well"


not because it's your job to clothe everyone in your finest apparel



but because you can't be hurt

if you know where your real life is safely kept...

[Timothy Sutter]

> if you know where your real life is safely kept...

on a lighter note;



TIC TAC TOE


statistically speaking there's
practically, at least, a 1 in 42
chance of winning at tic tac toe.

there may be scenarios with
higher probable outcomes
for a tic tac toe.

but once a you recognize the pattern
there's basically
a zero chance of getting
a tic tac toe.

what's kind of funny,

though it may seem sort of hokie

is that,

what if there was this combination safe

that had a snickers bar inside

and the key to get inside and
get at the snickers bar

was getting a tic tac toe.

now, if you play it the 'normal' way

and try to -win- at tic tac toe,

you never win and you never get at the snickers bar,

but if you could convince yourselves to cooperate

and play to get the tic tac toe

as opposed to -winning- at tic tac toe,

you could easily work out a tic tac toe

in a matter of moments and get
the snickers bar and -win-
the candy.

but who's gunna trust whom
to actually -win- the
tic tac toe

and open the combination
safe and get the candy bar

and then share that candy bar because

it was some sort of joint effort?

otherise, it's a perpetual 'cats' game

and the snickers bar never gets got.

but you played to -win-

and never did win.

must be some sort of wierd thing.


of course you could switch

snickers bar for perpetual bliss,

but i was just making an example.




like sometimes, in certain areas,

to play to -win-

results in perpetual nothingness in a cats game,

and you always lose.

not that this other thing is playing to lose,

but you can't -win- at that thing playing to -win-.'

or,

playing to -win- takes on

a different character that it

may have in some other areas.



anyway, i see now that tic tac toe

does have some sort of purpose.

it's not just an exercise in futility

that would be the secondary meaning.

it must be sort of like playing house,

cuz, when i was a little person,

we played war,

"bang bang, you're dead"

"bullet proof vest"

"bullet proof everything"

i never played house...

maybe once or twice.

but i see this thing in tic tac toe.

you _can_ -win- at tic tac toe.

it's just a differnt kind of -win-

maybe i always knew that.

sure seems clear, now.




"i have not yet begun,

to fight no more forever"





of course, there's people who play house

who start drawing lines down the middle of it

and end up going to war


so, that's no criterion.


they shoulda figgered out from tic tac toe.



depends on how you look at it



like you need to have peace talks

before you go to war

cuz after,

it always ends up in cats




just remember,

=that's= not 'winning' =that's= 'lose/lose'

cuz nobody 'won anything...

=but= yous =can= get a tic tac toe
three in a row and get the candy bar...

in fact, it's -easy-


so, playing to -win- at tic tac toe

is totally different from

playing to 'win' at checkers...


but, 'winning' at tic tac toe is a 'win/win' situation


and -that's- what you really really want...



"believe it or not"



cuz 'win/win' is the ultimate -generator- of 'wealth'

and win/lose devolving in to ===> lose/lose

is the ultimate detroyer of 'wealth'

=now= show me "change"


=IF= you think you can...


otherwise, the eschaton is hanging over your head...




and the thing is

it is sort of the way it is whether you -believe- it or not


of course, if youdon't -believe- in win/win

then you'll not likely behave so as to expect a win'win

and slowly but surely you devolve to lose/lose...

'believe it or not'