Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 07:25:23 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 12, 2:00 am, David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 3:46 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 10, 11:34 am, jaygarri..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 10, 9:55 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> > > >If you had to pick one, which would you pick words of wisdom or
> > > >agreeableness?
> > > That's a false and self-serving dichotomy.
> > He presented it as a hypothetical, not a dichotomy. Since
> > it's not a dichotomy, it can't be a false dichotomy.
> Actually it's a standard terminology for considering "black and white"
> situations. See
> Gene's question involves a hypothetical dichotomy.
I read that wiki article, and it did not support your position. All the examples it gave were of dichotomies that were *not* presented as hypothetical. I understand the term "false dichotomy" to refer specifically to a rhetorical attempt to narrow the possible choices for discussion down to fewer than there are, especially in cases where the two presented are not even mutually exclusive. Gene's comment did nothing of the sort; it merely asked which of two things is more important. It implicitly noted that it wasn't an actual choice.
It is a small point, though.
> I interpreted the
> response as simply saying it's an irrelevant question because the
> antecedent is generally false. If you see relevance in the question,
> what is it exactly?
The relevance is in the question of why does one come to this newsgroup? If it is for social interaction, then one has mistaken the purpose of the group. If it is for factual information, then putting a pretty face on such is of minor importance.
I *am* playing with words, but I am not *just* playing with words.
Marshall Received on Fri Jun 12 2009 - 16:25:23 CEST