Re: c.d.theory glossary - proposed preamble

Timothy J. Bruce wrote:

> mAsterdam:
>
> I hoped my comments would have emboldened your efforts, rather than
> take the wind from your sails, so to speak.

I am not going to define the world. Hey - i had to look up 'emboldened'! (but it meant what I thought it would).

Most discussion in this group is heavy brownsian movement right now. Many long and short vectors, and if one heats the closed barrel the intermolecular clashes have more impact - but the sum of it ..., no not NULL.
Quantum leaps, database managementsystems which can do everything better then everything else, theories superior to all other, unified or even universal vocabularies. From relativity to 4VL, solving all philosophical issues in an instant. It looks like we can plan milestones by the million.
Should I put in some nice quotes by Lakatos, von Bertalanffy, Barthes, Canetti and get away faking along
with the 'discussion'? No.

I could have responded to your questions with something like no no yes because it helps, but I don't think responding in that sense would really help. Specific suggestions would, BTW.

For the glossary I prefer inch-pebbles. Received on Fri Apr 23 2004 - 18:16:19 CDT