Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 14:34:27 GMT
Message-ID: <Tjouh.9974$yj7.304_at_trndny08>
"dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169047016.004292.163450_at_s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 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
> > 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.
>
> I guess I do if you take your ball and go home. I do appreciate that
> you have not stooped to severe intimidation techniques after an initial
> attack, as I much prefer a logical discussion over being bullied.
> Thank you. It makes me think you might actually be a kind person in
> spite of your little content-free jab here. Have a good day. --dawn
>
I guess you took "no one can correct you" as a jab. I might be, but it also might not be.
If your opinions are correct, as you no doubt think they are, then the phrase "no one can correct you" is not derogatory. If some of your opinions are wrong, and demonstrably wrong, then the failure of this group to change your mind speaks either to the poverty of expression of the people in this group or to your invincible stubborness in maintaining positions not backed up by the evidence.
I have my own opinion as to which one is the stronger reason.
Let's go back to one thing you've siad in this group: you've surmised that the success of the relational model in obtaining acceptance in the computer industry is due to a thirty year campaign of marketing hype, rather than due to the real results that professionals have observed. That's not logical argument, dawn. It's conspiracy theory of the most outlandish sort. Received on Fri Jan 26 2007 - 15:34:27 CET