People used to say: to have everything is as though to have nothing, or: to want everything is as if to want nothing, or: to be everywhere is like to be nowhere... And so on. The list of such sayings could be really long: to see everything is like to see nothing, to have heard everything is as if to have heard nothing, to know everything is as if to know nothing... Is it really so? Who knows... An overwhelming majority of sayings of that sort is very imprecise, this one as well; not only due to the phrase „as though” or „as if” or „like”; although this phrase is very often omitted and not uttered at all and we say simply “to know everything is to know nothing”, it is present in our minds, and its presence indicates the similarity of the situations being compared, not their sameness. While we can not say that two things are more or less identical because they are either identical or they are not, we can easily say that two things are more or less similar. This is clear and obvious, however obvious things and matters also need profound analysis, since their obviousness is a very nasty trap so dangerous for our awareness and carefulness... And, interestingly, not everything can be combined in such a way. For example: to have eaten everything is as though to have eaten nothing. Even if we emphasized as though, this sentence would sound bizarre. Perhaps the source of bizarreness is the fact eating is something concrete, of a binary nature, 0-1, not abstract like being, knowing or having (possessing) are. Well, in fact we don't know what to be, to have or to know really mean – but we know very well what to eat means.
It is also very interesting whether the reversed saying would bring the same or at least similar message: to have nothing is as if to have everything, or: to know nothing is as though to know everything... And so on. Certainly, many a reversed saying would surprise us with its oddity, even craziness, also with troublesome acuteness.
Let's go bravely forward and further.
To be everywhere is as if to be nowhere. If so, then: to go everywhere is like to go nowhere. What means that everywhere is nowhere. Or, everything is as if nowhere. Does it mean also that nowhere is everywhere? This I don't know. But I know that somewhere (under, over, above, before, behind or nearby) all other domains should be listed: the existing and used ones, the existing and not used ones (if there are any), the non-existing which might exist and be used... And so on. Practically this would mean to create the set of two-letter and three-letter combinations. And four-letter combinations, too. The fact many of them were not attributed to any domain existing now, did not mean such situation would last for ever. Nobody knows how many and what domains will appear – if .xxx means right now pornographic websites, .yyy could mean puritanic websites. And .unl combination could mean websites unlike all the others. For example. And so on.
But, if: to write everything is as though to write nothing, while: to write nothing is as if to write everything, I wonder what we can expect clicking .AOD combination.