Re: relational reasoning -- why two tables and not one?

From: Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_ocis.net>
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:41:28 -0700
Message-ID: <lg3ld5165n0g6ckbdq1tdpltirtntr1s2r_at_4ax.com>


On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:39:56 -0300, Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:43:15 -0300, Bob Badour
>> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>That's certainly one type of mysticism. In this case, I think we have
>>>someone acting more like Alice with Humpty Dumpty. The name "donation"
>>>means exactly what the person who applied it to a table meant at the time.
>>
>> More like Humpty Dumpty:
>> "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
>> 'it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.'" --
>> "Through the Lookingglass"
>
>I disagree. The person who created the donations table acted exactly

 ^^^^^^^^^^^                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>like Humpty. The name means exactly what he meant when he applied it to
^^^^^^^^^^^^

>the table. That person isn't here that we know of.

     ??? You disagree, but then you state my case.

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Sun Oct 18 2009 - 05:41:28 CEST

Original text of this message