Re: What so special about PostgreSQL and other RDBMS?

Howard J. Rogers allegedly said,on 29/05/2004 9:35 PM:

> Strange thing about nouns. They are all something. I think it is the way of
> nouns.

Precisely. Which makes any syllogism involving them meaningless as proof of anything.

> Less common maybe. But not non-existent.

and totally non-applicable.

> Evidently. But the other meanings exist. And they are valid. And they
> warrant a look.

I got a perfect match to the meaning of a verb, I don't need to find any others offered as alternative meanings for particular situations.

> Yup. And the problem at hand is you claiming "vendor of free software" is
> imbecile/imbecilic/a contradiction. So to refute that, one has to take the
> one that deals with that problem. And OED No.6 does that quite nicely, thank
 > you.

Nope. No6 deals AS AN ALTERNATIVE with "inspire with a desire to buy or acquire". You cannot buy or acquire something that is free. Therefore this simply does not apply. Actually, correction: you CAN buy something that is free. But it usually means a transaction involving bridges...

> They mention imbecilic as the *alternative* form of the adjectival use.

and that I presume makes it the first choice? Or is it like I said: the second alternative?

> But
> the adjectival use is secondary to the first as a noun.

No. The word can be equally used as an adjective or a noun. There is no first or second. A noun is not the same as an adjective, there is no implicit ordering anywhere.
And no, this is NOT proof that point 6 is equally valid as point 1, so don't even go there.

> The problem at hand is your claim a phrase is lunacy. It isn't. Your wrong.

Yes, says you, and I'm not.

> OED No.6 makes the point for me.

It most definitely does not. Submit it to the authors of that dictionary or credible linguists and watch how far you get. Matter of fact: take this to a credible linguistic scholar (preferably not someone with an Internet handle of "MSsux" or another similar *kewl* phrase) and see how far you get with trying to make it pass for something other than utter rubbish. Quite frankly, I couldn't be bothered: it's only too obvious what the result would be.

Hasn't it even bothered you that the only use of that phrase ANYWHERE in the world is in ONE SINGLE article and it has never been repeated anywhere else except as an argument in this thread? At a guess as for the why: the phrase is SO asinine no one has ever tried to use it again?

> You can't selectively ignore the definitions that don't suit.

You can't selectively pick definitions to suit.

> Not when your
> opening statement in this particular branch of a ridiculous thread is all
> about the meaning of words.

No it isn't. It is about an imbecile phrase. Which you have feebly attempted to prove correct by attempting to discredit my understanding of English given your a-priori knowledge that it is not my primary language. And failed multiple times. By having to invoke successive dictionaries, pulling in "wide use" proofs that were shown wrong, claiming incorrectly that I used the wrong word as an adjective in an attempt to discredit my argumentation, etcetc. In other words, an exercise in futile semantics. Funny during a weekend.

-- 
Cheers
Nuno Souto
wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam