Re: A pk is *both* a physical and a logical object.

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 . . .".

     Try talking to someone who is deliberately trying to sabotage the communication. You are trying to communicate effectively. The other person is not. What is the effect on communication? Negative.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.