Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object.
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 08:30:52 -0700
Jan Hidders <hidders_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>On 13 jul, 06:31, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>> Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On 12 jul, 22:43, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>> >> Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> [snip]
>> >> >That has nothing to do with the lack of proper definitions, but rather
>> >> >with the lack of the will to communicate. If both sides are interested
>> >> >in communicating they will establish a common domain of discourse as
>> >> >soon as they notice that this is lacking. If both sides are not
>> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >> ITYM "either side is".
>> >The weaker claim seemed to make my point just as well, and I wanted to
>> >avoid a detracting discussion about whether or not there is a high
>> >chance of succesful communication if only one is really interested.
>> >Sometimes you just can't win. :-)
>> It was a stronger claim. It takes but one weasel to confuse
>> conmmunication. (Just try reading what some marketroids put out.)
>Are you sure you are not deliberately misunderstanding me? ;-)
To answer seriously (Get that emoticon out of the way!):
". . . both sides are . . ." is a stronger statement than ". . . either side is . . .".
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices.Received on Fri Jul 13 2007 - 17:30:52 CEST