It ' s great . I ' m also originally from CA and was surprised to see this when I first moved out here . <| sep |> You can ' t order that on amazon ? I mean , you can get that amp but it sucks . It won ' t give you much power and it won ' t last . It ' s your money tho <| sep |> He has to wait until at least January . Probation officers don ' t like you working at places that serve alcohol <| sep |> Quantifying on all proposition is not anodyne , that ' s a really strong admittance that you can do it and admit a claim on each . A difficulty that saying If all truths don ' t quite catch . There ' s even a semantic difference because p refers to all propositions , not only the ones that are true . I think that p is quantifying over all truths , not over all propositions . Why isn ' t this anodyne ? The other main problem is the symbol which is indeed used to mean possibly but is in fact a little stronger in meaning than that . But I ' m asking you to explain what ' s stronger , not just to repeat the claim that it ' s stronger . At any rate , I don ' t think that the symbol has any important bearing on the argumentwe could just define the predicate Bx to mean x is knowable , and then replace all instances of Kx with Bx . We ' d also have to replace C and D with something like If Kx , then Bx . Would your objection still stand if we made those replacements ?