Re: Objects and Relations

On Feb 23, 3:24 am, paul c <toledobythe..._at_oohay.ac> wrote:
> Lemming wrote:
> > On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:50:55 GMT, Bob Badour
> > <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >> ...
> >>Humans tend toward laziness and complacency. Something has to shock them
>
> >>from their revery before they act.
>
> > Blimey, seems like school is out again.
>
> > I'll come back in a week or so. Maybe there will be some grownups
> > here by then.
>
> Blimey yourself. Things aren't likely to change in ten years at the
> rate this group is going. The thread title, "Objects and Relations"
> ought to tell any regular reader that it is about apples and oranges aka
> minotaurs and two-legged creatures.
>
> It is so bloody ironic to me that much of what's been posted here lately
> has more to do with with c.d. philosophy, none of which could never be
> implemented by a genious, let alone any sane person. Sometimes I think
> that the reason is there are so many people who aren't familiar with
> what a computer can do and never bothered finding that out who persist
> in trying to make them do things they can't. There's now been enough
> object history to show that humans are not likely to ever agree on any
> of OO's logical implications whereas the tiny, tidy relational theory
> remains misunderstood by so many who seem to think that it could be
> better if only it were bigger.
>
> p
Would'nt it be more concise to state that this NG is *sterile* because it is filled with *sterile* debates. I am trying to launch debates about new ideas (Ex: Avoiding bidimensional computing representation of relations) that do not have necessarily a direct relationship to terminology or who has got the bigger penis, but I perceive an invisible force always bringing back the topic to *OO vs RM*, *ignorants vs cranks vs trolls*. I wish I could break such vicious circle. Received on Fri Feb 23 2007 - 10:04:23 CET