Re: Something new for the New Year (2008).
From: Marshall <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9445ba11-a887-458c-abe4-281e87781e18@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
> Although Marshall says: "I *still* don't know what you find
> interesting about it", I would argue that in addition to being the
> first, new relationship representation in 35 years (nested sets
> notwithstanding), it also demonstrates considerable analytic utility.
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:54:50 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <9445ba11-a887-458c-abe4-281e87781e18@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 15, 9:06 am, Rob <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Although Marshall says: "I *still* don't know what you find
> interesting about it", I would argue that in addition to being the
> first, new relationship representation in 35 years (nested sets
> notwithstanding), it also demonstrates considerable analytic utility.
I don't think you're taking point-of-view into consideration very well.
Let me ask you: looking out my window, I see a lot of fog. I claim it is the kind of fog that is just going to burn off, and not the kind that will turn into rain. Do you agree?
See the problem?
I cannot disprove your "considerable analytic utility" claim. Neither can I confirm it.
Maybe I could take a picture of the fog and send it to you. Maybe you could show some of this analytic utility in action. Then we might be on more solid footing with regards to each others claims.
Marshall Received on Tue Jan 15 2008 - 14:54:50 CST