Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:39:02 GMT
Message-ID: <ayqrh.14756$Ch1.1071_at_trndny04>
"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1168979785.574621.294740_at_q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Walt wrote:
> > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1168966726.317308.322230_at_l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:1168882079.488314.138100_at_51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:1168831761.571396.308030_at_11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > > > Marshall wrote:
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > Sure. And since you are of the opinion that theory can steer
us
> > down
> > > > > > > > the wrong path, and since you regularly deprecate relational
> > theory
> > > > > > > > but do not provide an alternative *theory*, I wonder at your
> > > > presence
> > > > > > > > in a theory newsgroup.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I had another comprehensive theory, I would not have so
many
> > > > > > > questions or opinions that I want to pass by those who can
correct
> > me.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No one can correct you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Many have, Walt, but thanks for the thought.
> > > >
> > > > Many have attempted, but you have been expounding on the same
incorrect
> > > > ideas for something like five years now.
> > >
> > > Could you point me to proof that something I expound is incorrect?
> > > Perhaps just starting by telling me what I think to be true that you
> > > think false, or vice versa, would be helpful. I would very much
> > > appreciate knowing.
> > >
> > this ground has already been covered by others. I see no need to cover
it
> > again.
>
> No, brother, it hasn't -- just various insults, opinions about my
> intelligence or lack thereof, and suggestions that whatever it is has
> been covered by others. I do not know what you think I have wrong. If
> you have a straight answer, it would be appreciated, otherwise your
> comments have simply been derogatory without any content from which I
> or anyone else can learn. I would hope that was not your intent, so
> please take the opportunity to rectify this, if only to give me one
> fact that is agreed upon by everyone else, but that I am missing.
> Thanks in advance. --dawn
>
You win... again. Received on Wed Jan 17 2007 - 15:39:02 CET