Re: c.d.theory glossary - proposed preamble

From: Senny <sennomo_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:17:20 GMT
Message-ID: <kmiic.1409$17.168741@news1.epix.net>

Wat??? Ik begrijp niet. Ik ken niet Lakatos, von Bertalanffy, Barthes, en Canetti. I wonder if I would understand your post better in Dutch.

There are a lot of funky topics right now. However, there are grains of useful ideas in each of them, and the trick is to find those grains.

When it comes to the glossary, I was simply pointing out that the problem is a bit deeper than many realize, because most of us are used to "winging it" instead of focused effort. The sad result is that the longer we go without order, the harder it becomes to establish order. I don't think my point was overkill, either. I mean, even if we sort out database terminology, if we don't sort out the rest, the non-database people will end up ruining our good work. It's a big task, but not an impossible one. Whether we will give it a good shot or not is another question.

In any case, there's no need to set the insanity bit quite yet.

--Senny

mAsterdam wrote:

> 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 - 19:17:20 CDT