Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40b86c85$0$31678$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> Howard J. Rogers allegedly said,on 29/05/2004 7:42 PM:
>
> > Software is indeed a good. And a good is something. Ergo, software is
> > something.
>
> So is fishing... :)

But the syllogism doesn't work the other way around, though your earlier post made it sound as if you wished it did. "Software is a good. A good is something. Ergo software is fishing". Nice try.

Strange thing about nouns. They are all something. I think it is the way of nouns.

>
> > Yes, so definition 1 states. But definitions 2 and onwards don't.
>
> The reason they don't, (2 onwards, I mean) is that they cater for the
> less common meanings of the word.

Less common maybe. But not non-existent.

>I take the first one that matches what
> I'm talking about. That was "goods for sale". Good enough a match for me
> to even bother looking at the rest.

Evidently. But the other meanings exist. And they are valid. And they warrant a look.

>It's not a question of a vote on a
> number of equal propositions, it's a question of selecting the significant
> explanation. Which in this case is goods for sale: the first one.
> Hence my use of it.

And hence my use of No.6, because it is significant in the current discussion, because it proves it is perfectly ok to say one can vend something for nothing.

> > But at least you have taken refuge in insisting on a *particular*
definition
> > of the word, instead of arguing that the other definitions aren't there
at
> > all.
>
> Yup. The one that matches more closely the problem at hand, in the event
of
> multiple choices.

Yup. And the problem at hand is you claiming "vendor of free software" is imbecile/imbecilic/a contradiction. So to refute that, one has to take the one that deals with that problem. And OED No.6 does that quite nicely, thank you.

> > No, you've made your point (and I've made mine). A word can have many
> > meanings, and one may rely on the less common or less well-known or the
more
> > obscure of them. Not just on the first defintion.
>
> Actually, the pages I mentioned note "imbecilic" as the secondary
> definition... :)

No, they ALL quote imbecile as the NOUN first, and as the adjective second. They mention imbecilic as the *alternative* form of the adjectival use. But the adjectival use is secondary to the first as a noun.

> > So only number 1 definitions are "perfect", and all others are
imperfect? In
>
> Not really. The ones that completely match the problem at hand.
> Which "sale of goods" matches to a "t".

The problem at hand is your claim a phrase is lunacy. It isn't. Your wrong. OED No.6 makes the point for me.

One can be selective in making a case. But then it isn't a very strong case. You can't selectively ignore the definitions that don't suit. Not when your opening statement in this particular branch of a ridiculous thread is all about the meaning of words.

Regards
HJR Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 06:35:14 CDT