Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

Keith H Duggar wrote:

> dawn wrote:
> 

Only an ignorant moron such as Dawn would want to do anything so stupid.

, even
>>if still a ways from RM implementations.
>
> Back to telling everyone what to do?

Where do you get the 'back' part? It's not like she ever stopped.

>>>I'm a firm believer that we can, in the end, get
>>>everything we want from building up theory without
>>>resorting to diving in headfirst with ad-hoc models.
>>
>>That would please me. If I thought ad-hoc was the best
>>way to go for the long haul, I wouldn't be reading cdt.

Sadly, she doesn't do much listening or comprehending of cdt. She would do herself and everyone a big favour if she spend more time thinking and less time posting.

>>But neither do I think the "look, there's a mathematical
>>theory, let's go there" approach served the industry well.

What is the point of her posting such idiotic fluff? Nobody here thinks all mathematical theory is created equal. Ironically, if we did, we would all stupidly jump to graph theory just as Dawn does.

> Perhaps because you were not around and are ignorant of the
> industry /before/ the theory? Perhaps because all the stuff
> you rant about are results of failing to go with the theory?
> Perhaps because you fail to grasp those and related points
> regardless of reason, evidence, etc?

She lacks intellectual capability and intellectual honesty. What else is there to say?

>>>Its always just a case of clarifying and iterating
>>>theory to get there. (i.e. Codd's legacy is certainly
>>>not dead).
>>
>>I agree with the last statement. But I would add to the
>>first statement something about how we need to refine our
>>practices as well and not accept theory without testing it
>>out to understand in terms of resources and quality just
>>what we gain with any given theory before we ditch known
>>best practices and jump on theory bandwagons.

What idiotic nonsense. The Pick bandwagon was accepted without refinement or reference to any theory. The relational model has proved itself with mountains of empirical evidence.

Dawn simply denies the elephant in the room.

  A theory,
>>like relational theory, might be tight mathematically,
>>but that is no proof that it is the best way to model
>>propositions, for example. I might not have said that
>>well, but I'm clicking to send anyway.

> 
> LOL. That paragraph was fantastically, beautifully ironic in
> so many ways. Were you are troll that would have be without
> question an elite coup de grace.
> 
> Oh by the way, are you ever going to apologize for calling
> some /people/ here rapists and terrorists?
> 
> -- Keith -- Fraud 6

She is about as likely to do that as she is to apologize for wasting everybody's time and for hijacking a theory newsgroup to satisfy her own perverse fetishes. Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 15:32:59 CEST