[bloodorange]

It's not meant to be read so literally. Going further on that route, "yesterday" is definitely not "history" and what comes tomorrow may be a mystery at some level but "tomorrow" itself is not a mystery. It's just the following day.

If you look at the spirit of the message instead, you'll see that it does have something valuable to say.

[jolmg]

I agree that it's a valuable thing to say. It's just that particular piece on present, the time, being named after present, the gift, that doesn't resonate with me. I understand that it's neat that they coincidentally share the same word and I'm sure that it does resonate with other people. I'm just sharing my own perspective.

Yesterday is history in that it forms part of past events. My browser history includes stuff I visited yesterday, for example. Tomorrow can also very well be mystery. That's why, again from my perspective, I have no issue with those parts.

It's the reasoning, like saying "that's why there's no 'I' in 'team'". Like, ok that's neat, but it's not valid reasoning.

[kleer001]

> ok that's neat, but it's not valid reasoning

Don't forget that more has been done in the history of men by the art of rhetoric than by a dialectic, that emotion moves people in force, not reason.

...

Also, that nature is not limited by human imagination.