Re: a union is always a join!
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:14:25 -0400
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:oBAxl.19125$PH1.584_at_edtnps82...
> Brian Selzer wrote:
>> "Walter Mitty" <wamitty_at_verizon.net> wrote in message
>>> "Brian Selzer" <brian_at_selzer-software.com> wrote in message >>> news:50qxl.22730$Ws1.10290_at_nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> >>> >>>> least not algebraic differences. Once one admits that there are things >>>> in the universe of discourse that can appear different at different >>>> times, the semantics of insert, update and delete become clear: insert >>>> describes the beginning of the path that something travels through >>>> time, updates describe milestones along the path that mark changes in >>>> appearance, and delete describes the end of the path. So a transition >>>> consisting of a delete and an insert that has no apparent effect on the >>>> database makes perfect sense because it describes the end of one thing >>>> and the beginning of another. >>> This is mysticism. >>
>> What is your definition of mysticism? According to Webster, mysticism is
>> 1: the experience of mystical union or direct communion with ultimate
>> reality reported by mystics
>> 2: the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate
>> reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or
>> 3a : vague speculation : a belief without sound basis b : a theory
>> postulating the possibility of direct and intuitive acquisition of
>> ineffable knowledge or power
>> My argument has nothing to do with a mystical union or direct
>> communication with ultimate reality, does not even refer to God,
>> spiritual truth or ultimate reality, nor does it concern the acquisition
>> of ineffable knowledge or power. I don't think there is anything vague
>> about my argument, and it is based upon the premise that there are things
>> in the universe of discourse that can appear different at different
>> times. I personally think that premise is reasonable. If you don't,
>> then I would like to hear your argument.
>> >> >> > > (Pardon me for jumping in, ha ha, I should know better than to fall for > these flights of fancy, I guess I'm just a sucker for alternative > interpretations of the RM but I don't feel too guilty about that when even > the big guns are still debating some nuances.) > > > Come on, this is a very unreasonable thing to ask of Walter (or any of the > few posters here nowadays), given what you wrote. Eg., things that appear > different from what they are, not to mention time travel! >
I thought that distortion, misdirection and obfuscation were the tools of propagandists and politicians, but even the propaganda arm of the Dimocrat party--the mainstream media--has enough integrity to merely take literal quotes out of context, rather than twist and distort what had been said to the point of being unrecognizable. I never said that things could appear different than what they are. That is more than even distortion to the point of being mutilation.
<snipped the remainder of your inane and perverse rant> Received on Mon Mar 23 2009 - 04:14:25 CET