Re: a union is always a join!

"Walter Mitty" <wamitty_at_verizon.net> wrote in message news:iVsvl.537$SU3.474_at_nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>
> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message
> news:8Agvl.2096$im1.632_at_nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> "paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
>> news:QT9vl.18230$PH1.1832_at_edtnps82...
>>> Walter Mitty wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> Don't you think Heraclitus said all of this much more clearly, some
>>>> 2500 years ago?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.spaceandmotion.com/philosophy-metaphysics-heraclitus.htm
>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like he was a fine old abstracter (abstractionist?). Seems
>>> Abelson and company were hip too:
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> (Even while it changes, it stands still.)
>>>
>>> Heraclitus
>>>
>>> (also):
>>>
>>> Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
>>>
>>> Alphonse Karr
>>>
>>> (both from the esteemed sicp book)
>>>
>>> I gather the temporal db people, whatever their arguments, at least
>>> agree on choosing their desired abstractions up front, not plopping
>>> multiple interpretations onto the basic Codd model with extraneous lingo
>>> like 'tense' and 'modal' in today's popular but despicable
>>> faux-technocratic way. (The general public has allowed the technocrats
>>> to usurp their own name, just like the once-respectable word
>>> 'propaganda' in the 1930's. An honest db technocrat ought never venture
>>> into metaphysics.).
>>
>> Is this the new liberalism: express a position that is counter to
>> consensus--regardless if it or the consensus is correct--and endure not
>> just scorn and ridicule, but even to being cast as morally reprehensible.
>> I guess it would be too much to ask for a rational argument, if it were
>> even possible for you to formulate one, since ad hominem attacks are
>> usually either petty acknowlegements that there is no counterargument or
>> hide an inability or an unwillingness to comprehend what is under
>> discussion.
>>
>>
>>
> Speaking of ad hominem attacks, do you recall what you said on Jan 7?
>
>> This is really very simple, if you choose to actually use the mass of
>> tissue between your ears.

This was not an ad hominem attack, but merely a goad, and it prefaced an argument that for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of logic clearly parallels the problem of updating a union view. Received on Tue Mar 17 2009 - 00:49:20 CET