Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto

From: Laconic2 <laconic2_at_comcast.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:58:04 -0500
Message-ID: <IImdnTKIkv-_fQXcRVn-uA_at_comcast.com>

"Tony Andrews" <andrewst_at_onetel.com> wrote in message news:1100525986.834032.110860_at_z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...

> I agree that this is a poor response, but not necessarily that Date
> doesn't understand OOP. I think it is another example of the dbdebunk
> "signal to noise" issue we have been discussing lately - an answer that
> clearly involved less than 2 minutes thought is published as if it
> contained something of significance for the public to read.
>

It used to be "a penny for your thoughts." Now it's "a sawbuck for my thoughts." Received on Mon Nov 15 2004 - 17:58:04 CET

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Costin Cozianu: "Re: 1GB Tables as Classes, or Tables as Types, and all that refuted"
Previous message: Marshall Spight: "Re: Two meanings of "data structures""
Maybe in reply to: Ja Lar: "Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto"
In reply to Tony Andrews: "Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto"
Next in thread: Ja Lar: "Re: Issues with the logical consistency of The Third Manifesto"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message