Re: a union is always a join!

From: Brian Selzer <>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:14:25 -0400
Message-ID: <n8Dxl.22778$>

"paul c" <> wrote in message news:oBAxl.19125$PH1.584_at_edtnps82...

> Brian Selzer wrote:

>> "Walter Mitty" <> wrote in message
>> news:R7qxl.1720$
>>> "Brian Selzer" <> wrote in message 
>>> news:50qxl.22730$
>>>> 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
>> either

>> 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
>> insight)
>> 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

Original text of this message