Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

On 16 Aug 2006 12:21:52 -0700, "dawn" <dawnwolthuis_at_gmail.com> wrote:

>Bob Badour wrote:
><snip>
>>
>> Dawn is not here to learn. She is here to promote herself and to advance
>> her own economic agenda.
>
>Just to set the record straight for others (Bob filters me and attacks,
>trying to intimidate, those who respond to me, in case you haven't
>figured that out) -- I have no motivation here other than to learn in
>order to help the industry provide better bang for the buck software
>solutions.

     So your sly and not-so-sly attacks on Codd, 1NF, etc. never happen?

>I make no money studying data modeling or from any of my work here. I

     So?

[snip]

>> 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.
>
>When someone asks questions you think are stupid or states opinions
>that you think are wrong, it seems it would be best to either ignore or
>engage them, as you choose. Bullying the person is not on my list of
>appropriate responses, and I'm sorry that Bob and company think it is
>appropriate.

     They do not, but you have used the same sorry lines over and over.

>> 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
>
>I was given no such glossary. When the group was asked at various
>times to provide definitions, I sometimes contributed. When my
>contribution was acceptable, it was added IIRC.
>
>> with her own
>> ignorant misconceptions.
>
>Some people only speak about topics on which they are certain (Bob
>seems to fall into that category). I speak on topics about which I
>have opinions, but often where I am not certain. I learn a lot that
>way.

     You speak with definite statements in areas where you do not know.

>Contributing to a shared glossary, as with all writing for me, is a way
>for me to learn if my definitions align with others or not (as well as
>helping to minimize mis-communication due to having different
>definitions). I think mAsterdam did a good job facilitating the
>glossary.
>
>I have never seen or felt such bullying before and prefer to spend time
>where I am welcome, so I'll go back to lurking again soon. I recognize
>that there is a risk in replying to me because you might be the next
>target, and being bullied, even just in a news group, is not fun -- it
>can be emotionally draining. So, to those who have defended my right
>to express opinions and ask questions in this forum, many thanks and
>cheers! --dawn

     I will be glad when you are gone again. Disagreement does not bother me, but willful stupidity does.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 23:53:43 CEST