Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

JOG wrote:

> Bob Badour wrote:
> 

> 
> Thanks, you are obviously correct.
> 
> 

> 
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 

> 
> I was encouraging movement in position that I saw. I obviously gather
> you think its a complete waste of time here.

It was worse than a waste of time. Please, take a moment to think about the meaning of Date's _Principle of Incoherence_: It's very difficult to reply coherently to that which is incoherent.

Effectiveness requires coherence. When replying to the incoherent, coherence requires great effort. What you posted was incoherent because you failed to put in the necessary effort. The incoherence makes what little effort you did put into it counter-productive.

In the end, you elevate and legitimize the self-aggrandizing ignorant while impeaching yourself.

When you engage the self-aggrandizing ignorants indiscriminately and without putting in the necessary effort for coherence, you put the rest of us in a difficult situation. Either we have to put in extra effort to respond coherently to your incoherence, or we have to dismiss you right along with the self-aggrandizing ignorants.

I ask that if you are going to engage the self-aggrandizing ignorants that you please do so sparingly and put in the necessary effort. Don't gloss over the most incoherent bits of what they say to try to find some common ground. That only legitimizes their nonsense while depriving others the benefits of the most valuable pedagogic opportunities.

> I still want to convince people of what I've learned - while your 'cut
> the crap' posting style has grown on me a lot, it doesn't seem to do
> that.

One will never reach those who have no motivation to learn and every motivation not to. That said, I have had my share of successes among those who remain.

Dawn is not here to learn. She is here to promote herself and to advance her own economic agenda.

  Worse still, you don't have to be a genius to see that it often > entrenches them, they carry on disseminating mistakes and it > perpetuates ignorance as a whole.

What you fail to understand is they are already entrenched in their minds. We can either surrender and allow them complete freedom to disseminate ignorance, or we can expose them for the charlatans they are.

In the two or three years when I stayed away and when Marshall and others pretended to engage Dawn at an intellectual level as a peer, the newsgroup gave her a semi-official glossary to pollute with her own ignorant misconceptions. That does far more to perpetuate ignorance than putting the self-aggrandizing ignorants on the defensive where they belong.

  While you can be very succinct and
> perceptive at your best, you can be counterproductive at your worst, > just perpetuating their positions.

You and I obviously disagree as to what is counterproductive. Those who are closed-minded enough to ignore me over style deserve their ignorance.

  You'd be a crap politician (you can
> take that as a compliment if you so desire).

Politics, as much as religion, opposes knowledge and science. In the end, it invariably prefers an ignorant and self-destructive consensus to frank honesty. I suggest we leave it to the many blood-sucking parasites.

> Now I know your thinking some people can't be convinced, and you'd be > spot on. But I'm young and naive so I'm gonna try anyway.

I only ask that you try harder to be effective instead of leaving the hard work to others.

  No doubt one
> day soon I'll lose my patience too, but until then you do your shit, > and I'll do mine. In the end the goal's the same.

The question is: How much damage are you going to do to yourself and to your goal in the meantime?

>>>>>but can hardly be processed as a data model.
>>>>>I'm guessing that your reference to www was tongue in cheek.
>>>>
>>>>It was a counter-example. Your words were "information handling" so it
>>>>worked.
>>>
>>>But you knew what I meant dawn, and were just being polemic. Paper
>>>holds information, but its not gonna be too hot for data modelling.
>>
>>Paper works in many applications and worked just fine for a couple
>>millenia prior to the advent of computers. I am having trouble
>>discerning a point to your stroking the egos of the self-aggrandizing
>>ignorants. It seems you are just wasting everyone's time.
>>
>>
>>>>[snippage]
>>>
>>>Nothing wrong with layers on top of RM and I agree group/ungroup normal
>>>form is very interesting.
>>
>>That depends on exactly what you mean by a layer. There is everything
>>wrong with violating the information principle or layering physical
>>pointers 'on top of' the RM.
>>
>>
>>>>Pick is practical in a big bang for the buck way.
>>
>>Bullshit. We have plenty of empirical evidence that Pickies universally
>>lack sufficient cognition to evaluate their own solutions. We have
>>plenty of empirical evidence that Pick forces causual users to have
>>expert level file processing skills in order to effectively use the
>>product. We have plenty of empirical evidence...

> 
> I'd appreciate if you stopped mixing posts from different authors. Its
> confusing and they start to look like neo's.

There is a very easy way for you to achieve what you desire. If you are going to excerpt blatant nonsense, respond to it coherently. If you are unwilling to put in the effort for coherence, at least identify it for what it is. Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 20:13:42 CEST