Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example
From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:54:04 -0400
Message-ID: <hcKdnc9F4KZ1p-PcRVn-1w_at_comcast.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 07:54:04 -0400
Message-ID: <hcKdnc9F4KZ1p-PcRVn-1w_at_comcast.com>
"Tony Andrews" <andrewst_at_onetel.com> wrote in message
news:1098782526.779433.57130_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> > >> You said this: "Almost everything Pascal says is drivel.
> QED."
> > >> That is a statement about Pascal.
> > >>
> > >> A restraction would be nice. An apology would be even
> better.
>
> This argument has managed to go on for half a dozen posts without
> either (a) Gene realising that Laconic2's "drivel" remark was an ironic
> re-use of Robert's "drivel" in post #4, or (b) Laconic2 explaining that
> to Gene.
>
> Can we move on now?
>
Thank you. Received on Tue Oct 26 2004 - 13:54:04 CEST