Re: Objects and Relations

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007 02:24:09 GMT, paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote:

>Lemming wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 13:50:55 GMT, Bob Badour
>> <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>Humans tend toward laziness and complacency. Something has to shock them
>>
>>>from their revery before they act.
>>
>> Blimey, seems like school is out again.
>>
>> I'll come back in a week or so. Maybe there will be some grownups
>> here by then.
>
>Blimey yourself. Things aren't likely to change in ten years at the
>rate this group is going. The thread title, "Objects and Relations"
>ought to tell any regular reader that it is about apples and oranges aka
>minotaurs and two-legged creatures.

Well, I'm an *irregular* reader and even more irregular *poster*, but I guess you understand why that might be.

>It is so bloody ironic to me that much of what's been posted here lately
>has more to do with with c.d. philosophy, none of which could never be
>implemented by a genious, let alone any sane person. Sometimes I think
>that the reason is there are so many people who aren't familiar with
>what a computer can do and never bothered finding that out who persist
>in trying to make them do things they can't. There's now been enough
>object history to show that humans are not likely to ever agree on any
>of OO's logical implications whereas the tiny, tidy relational theory
>remains misunderstood by so many who seem to think that it could be
>better if only it were bigger.
>
>p

Yeah, so it would seem. I dunno, maybe I'm not clever enough for this group, but I've never found religious wars particularly productive (fun though they might be for the participants).

Hey, ho; see you in ten years :)

Lemming

-- 
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.