The difference lies in the systematic way of explaining negative cases. If one is not explaining systematically, it is part of degenerative research program, if I were to use that word coined by a philosopher of science, Late Imre Lakatos. Even though two competing research programs explain negative cases, one that does systematically wins: these debates are part and parcel of the history and philosophy of natural sciences. I was simply pointing out that "It all depends" is a trivial answer. Oh reputed author, who is asinine? Who was harsh against Roby when he did some work during his breaks, instead of seeking clarifications which is part of any evaluation? On 8/17/07, Robert Freeman <robertgfreeman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: -- //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l