Before revision: The second-century Roman historian Aulus Gellius described the distinction between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonists as follows: "...the Academics apprehend (in some sense) the very fact that nothing can be apprehended, and they determine (in some sense) that nothing can be determined, whereas the Pyrrhonists assert that not even that seems to be true, since nothing seems to be true."
After revision: <blockquote>The second-century Roman historian Aulus Gellius described the distinction between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonists as follows: "...the Academics apprehend (in some sense) the very fact that nothing can be apprehended, and they determine (in some sense) that nothing can be determined, whereas the Pyrrhonists assert that not even that seems to be true, since nothing seems to be true."