Re: a union is always a join!

"Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message news:8Agvl.2096$im1.632_at_nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
> news:QT9vl.18230$PH1.1832_at_edtnps82...
>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> Don't you think Heraclitus said all of this much more clearly, some 2500
>>> years ago?
>>>
>>> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/philosophy-metaphysics-heraclitus.htm
>>
>>
>> Sounds like he was a fine old abstracter (abstractionist?). Seems
>> Abelson and company were hip too:
>>
>> M
>>
>> (Even while it changes, it stands still.)
>>
>> Heraclitus
>>
>> (also):
>>
>> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
>>
>> Alphonse Karr
>>
>> (both from the esteemed sicp book)
>>
>> I gather the temporal db people, whatever their arguments, at least agree
>> on choosing their desired abstractions up front, not plopping multiple
>> interpretations onto the basic Codd model with extraneous lingo like
>> 'tense' and 'modal' in today's popular but despicable faux-technocratic
>> way. (The general public has allowed the technocrats to usurp their own
>> name, just like the once-respectable word 'propaganda' in the 1930's. An
>> honest db technocrat ought never venture into metaphysics.).
>
> Is this the new liberalism: express a position that is counter to
> consensus--regardless if it or the consensus is correct--and endure not
> just scorn and ridicule, but even to being cast as morally reprehensible.
> I guess it would be too much to ask for a rational argument, if it were
> even possible for you to formulate one, since ad hominem attacks are
> usually either petty acknowlegements that there is no counterargument or
> hide an inability or an unwillingness to comprehend what is under
> discussion.
>
>
>
Speaking of ad hominem attacks, do you recall what you said on Jan 7?

> This is really very simple, if you choose to actually use the mass of
> tissue between your ears.
Received on Mon Mar 16 2009 - 14:57:34 CET