Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events
From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:28:25 GMT
Message-ID: <Zglsh.3009$1x.51986_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
>
>
> That's an agenda that wasn't part of the discussion at all, and even
> though I believe economists would disagree wholeheartedly with you, its
> just noise. Nevertheless, I take you at your word that you do not
> intentionally attempt to railroad discussions off in a different angle.
> The thing is it /does/ seem to happen in every single thread that you
> get involved with, and once it does, reasonable conversation is over.
> It would be nice to consciously avoid that, otherwise what's the point
> of posting on here at all?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:28:25 GMT
Message-ID: <Zglsh.3009$1x.51986_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
JOG wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>You made a statement with which I disagreed and which I thought was >>what led us to disrupt things in an unfortunate way in the first place. >> I apologize if my response to a statement you thought obvious was >>distracting since I honestly think it is a central issue in how the >>industry took a bad turn.
>
>
> That's an agenda that wasn't part of the discussion at all, and even
> though I believe economists would disagree wholeheartedly with you, its
> just noise. Nevertheless, I take you at your word that you do not
> intentionally attempt to railroad discussions off in a different angle.
> The thing is it /does/ seem to happen in every single thread that you
> get involved with, and once it does, reasonable conversation is over.
> It would be nice to consciously avoid that, otherwise what's the point
> of posting on here at all?
Your first mistake is assuming the self-aggrandizing ignorant has any intention other than self-aggrandizement. This one lost the benefit of the doubt four years ago.
[snip] Received on Sat Jan 20 2007 - 10:28:25 CET