>
\r?\n> Jerry,
\r?\n>
\r?\n> I agree with what you have said although there is no reason to believe
\r?\n> that that is the only possible option that would explain that behavior.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> I consider it a possible explaination but not the only one. It is not
\r?\n> the option of the ones available that "feels right" to me. I do have the
\r?\n> advantage of having known all of the parties involved in this instance,
\r?\n> so for me there is a little more background knowledge than the adverage
\r?\n> person. I suppose that may influence my calculations a small amount, but
\r?\n> I believe in my favor.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> So, as we reason through this, I consider your point of view valid and I
\r?\n> appreciate you view and your having shared it. That's what this is all
\r?\n> about. Dialog is good. Otherwise we learn nothing.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Thanks Jerry.
\r?\n>
\r?\n> Brian Baylis
\r?\n> La Mesa, CA
\r?\n> OK, back to my prayers.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Brian, I don't find this remarkable at all. When a very close family member
\r?\n> > dies, especially unexpectedly at a very young age, the survivors are under
\r?\n> > tremendous emotional stress. It's easy to become so numbed that normal
\r?\n> > logic fails one, and the fact an inventory was taken goes unnoticed in the
\r?\n> > flood of emotional preoccupation, or the normal conclusion that an inventory
\r?\n> > implies a subsequent offer is overlooked. I think most folks would agree
\r?\n> > with Jim that to buy stuff for pennies on the dollar at that point from a
\r?\n> > distraught widow temporarily unable to apply her usual logic is a
\r?\n> > dishonorable think to do.
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Regards,
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Jerry Moos
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > Brian Baylis wrote:
\r?\n> >
\r?\n> > > Listmembers,
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > I very recently had an experience that illistrates beautifully how the
\r?\n> > > logic and reasoning system works, and why I like it so much.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > I don't want to stir the pot, I simply had a legitimate question in my
\r?\n> > > mind upon hearing for the first time the story about the "unscrupulous"
\r?\n> > > dealings with the Mario tools. I could not understand why the widow
\r?\n> > > would sell Marios' tools and fixturing to one party for $800 knowing
\r?\n> > > that another party had valued them at $20,000 and was trying to raise
\r?\n> > > $5,000( more if he could get it) for their purchase. One has to assume
\r?\n> > > either the widow didn't know party B was offering that much money for
\r?\n> > > the stuff, or she was prone to going contrary to every human urge to
\r?\n> > > take the offer from the highest bidder. Especially considering the huge
\r?\n> > > difference in the two offers. One would assume if party B took an
\r?\n> > > inventory, that the widow was aware of at least a pending offer.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > So given the fact that the goods were sold to party A for $800, one has
\r?\n> > > to ask "why on earth would someone do that?" That's the usetteling
\r?\n> > > question that has been haunting the inner reaches of my mind since I
\r?\n> > > heard the story. Either Marios' widow was embarrassingly stupid ( I
\r?\n> > > never met her, but knowing Mario the odds are definitely against it), or
\r?\n> > > some other reason has to be present.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > I was sanding a frame earlier today. During this operation which
\r?\n> > > requires concentration, my mind is focused and in a Zen state of sorts.
\r?\n> > > I'm concentrating on work but my mind is open and I'm having dialog and
\r?\n> > > pondering my thoughts. Suddenly I become consciously aware that the
\r?\n> > > answer to "that question " has arrived. It's called an "Ahh Haa" moment
\r?\n> > > my some people. "Oh yeah, now I understand. That makes perfect sense!"
\r?\n> > > It explains all of the questions associated with it and does not
\r?\n> > > contradict any of the known evidence in the case. Plus it "feels" right.
\r?\n> > > Amazing thing really.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > And as is frequently the case with answers of this sort, come the
\r?\n> > > unavoidable and ever popular "more questions". You know; Why Daddy?, Why
\r?\n> > > Daddy?, Why Daddy?...
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > Because, because, because.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > I hope this is within the bounds of our freedom here. A legitimate
\r?\n> > > statement has been made. I believe a legitimate question is in order.
\r?\n> > > I hate to leave things of import and interest hanging. I feel better
\r?\n> > > when all the parts fit and everything is in line. Bad habit, I guess.
\r?\n> > >
\r?\n> > > Brian Baylis
\r?\n> > > La Mesa, CA
\r?\n> > > Oh, did I forget to finish the story? Damn....Guess you'll have to do
\r?\n> > > some thinking of your own. "Ahh Haa" monents are fun.