Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events

Walt wrote:

> "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

>>>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

>>>>>>>>questions or opinions that I want to pass by those who can

>>>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

>>>>>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

>>>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

See cars: red and blue.

> You win... again.
Received on Wed Jan 17 2007 - 16:25:02 CET