Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

"Noons" <wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam> wrote in message news:40b84ab4$0$1587$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> Howard J. Rogers allegedly said,on 29/05/2004 6:05 PM:
>
> > It does. I showed you it does. Selling something doesn't *necessarily*
imply
> > the movement of cash
>
> <sigh>
> "Something" is NOT "free software". Software is a "good".

Software is indeed a good. And a good is something. Ergo, software is something.

> "Selling a good" implies cash (or its equivalent) being traded,
> or so definition one (1) of all the dictionaries says.

Yes, so definition 1 states. But definitions 2 and onwards don't. And there are more of them than there are of number 1. So do we take a vote on it or what? It's interesting you like definition 1 of 'to sell', and appear not to want to accept any of the other definitions. Yet later on, you will have to resort to definition 2 of imbecile to make your point! You can't have it both ways.

But at least you have taken refuge in insisting on a *particular* definition of the word, instead of arguing that the other definitions aren't there at all.

> > Imbecilic. Imbecile is a noun, and you are looking for the adjective.
> > Especially since "This phrase" is already your noun.
>
> Thanks for the correction. I should have used the secondary adjective.
> But can I use this for the time being:
> http://www.yourdictionary.net/imbecile.html ?
> It appears it is also an adjective there...
> Given that you go all the way to option 6, can I use option 2 of the word?
> Would you like me to second-quote?
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=imbecile
> More?
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/35/I0043500.html
> Shall I continue?

No, you've made your point (and I've made mine). A word can have many meanings, and one may rely on the less common or less well-known or the more obscure of them. Not just on the first defintion.

> Refute? Let me see: you jump to a 5th (or 6th) alternative for definition
> of something that is perfectly defined in the first one: "selling of goods
> in exchange for cash or its equivalent";

So only number 1 definitions are "perfect", and all others are imperfect? In that case, I re-state that you should have used "imbecilic". Alternatively, you could just accept that, whether you *like* using a "less-than-perfect" definition or not, the declension is there and is lexically correct.

>and *I* am the one that has to refute
> anything? You gotta be kidding.
>
> > <hit eject button>
> <DING!>

I find it hard to find the buttons some times.

Regards
HJR Received on Sat May 29 2004 - 04:42:36 CDT