Re: object algebra

"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:VjY_b.118606$jk2.515254_at_attbi_s53...
> "Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri_at_iahu.com> wrote in message
news:QZR_b.37$kg3.206_at_news.oracle.com...
> > "Eric Kaun" <ekaun_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bHP_b.17521$%p4.2788_at_newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> > > If Mary has no eyes, then the definition of a person as having eyes is
> > > flawed.
> >
> > The c.d.t actively promotes and is committed to ensure a work
environment
> > that is free from any discriminatory influence be it actual or
perceived. As
> > such, it is the c.d.t expectation that our posters make a concentrated
> > effort to ensure that any article that are provided to c.d.t. do not
possess
> > or portray an image that may be construed as offensive or defamatory in
> > nature.
>
> Exactly my thought. When I read the "no eyes" example, my immediate
> reaction was "ewwww!" Why didn't he chose a less graphic example
> of an attribute that was clearly inapplicable to Mary, such as penis
length.

Penis length is not a problem of missing information. If Mary is married and monogamous, she has one penis length. If Mary is single, she has many. Received on Thu Feb 26 2004 - 00:27:11 CET