Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

From: <jaygarrick7_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <f022fd34-38ad-4776-939f-ead2513979d7_at_q37g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>


On Jun 10, 12:22�pm, cim..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
> On 10 juin, 20:34, jaygarri..._at_gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 9:55�am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
>
> > > David BL <davi..._at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
> > > >On Jun 10, 10:24 am, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > > >> paul c wrote:
> > > >> > David BL wrote:
> > > >> > ...
>
> > > >> >> This is clearly intended to mock, and in a nasty way. It is typical of
> > > >> >> BB. �Perhaps BB could himself do with some suggestions for reading
> > > >> >> material - books with titles like "How to win friends and influence
> > > >> >> people".
>
> > > >> Given I already have friends and I already influence people, I have no
> > > >> use for Carnegie's recipes for intellectual dishonesty. I suggest that's
> > > >> more appropriate reading for the snake oil salesmen and
> > > >> self-aggrandizing ignorants.
>
> > > >Not having read that book myself, I could not say whether it contains
> > > >recipes for intellectual dishonesty. �However I think BB would do well
> > > >to think about the idea of being able to influence a wider audience.
> > > >The importance of the relational model need to be pushed, and BB is
> > > >talented enough to do so. �I often find myself reading his posts for
> > > >words of wisdom, despite my distaste for his personality.
>
> > > � � �If you had to pick one, which would you pick words of wisdom or
> > > agreeableness?
>
> > > � � �Fabian Pascal gave up on Database Debunking after several years.
> > > It was grinding water.
>
> > > � � �The same old stupidities keep coming again and again. �It is not
> > > surprising that people get tired of explaining the same thing over and
> > > over.
>
> > > Sincerely,
>
> > > Gene Wirchenko
>
> > > Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
> > > � � �I have preferences.
> > > � � �You have biases.
> > > � � �He/She has prejudices.
> > >If you had to pick one, which would you pick words of wisdom or
> > >agreeableness?
>
> > That's a false and self-serving dichotomy.
>
> > > � � The same old stupidities keep coming again and again. �It is not
> > >surprising that people get tired of explaining the same thing over and
> > >over.
>
> > Then please stop martyring yourselves to the cause, Besides, it's not
> > as though you have anything original to say anyway. While you're at
> > it, please drop the pretext that this group is anything other than a
> > circle-jerk for you, Badour, Marshall, cimode, et al., and an insular
> > platform for omphaloskepsis and unwarranted egotism.
>
> > Please, all of you, put your flaccid penises away and dispense with
> > the Don Quixote/Sisyphus affectations.
>
> Just take it easy. � This is a place of public speech about database
> science. �Contradictions and argument exchange are to be promoted and
> expected. �Personal attacks, OTOH, such as the one you just made are
> to be avoided as much as possible. �I wander what exactly have I said
> to upset you up to that point.
>
> Just keep in mind there is in fact no *you*. �Each of the names you
> quoted have no relationship to one another other than, perhaps, the
> firm belief that neither eloquence nor mumbo jumbo could be
> reasonnable substitutes for substance.

> This is a place of public speech about database science
No, that's what it's supposed to be. In fact, though, this "place" is nothing more than a claque for Fabian Pascal, Chris Date and Hugh Darwen, and a fortification against the advancement of useful new data management theories (an oxymoron here, naturally) populated by sclerotic epigones of those guiding lights just listed.

> Personal attacks...are to be avoided as much as possible
Agreed. In this case, it wasn't possible. Just like it wasn't possible every time Badour called someone an idiot (often a "self-aggrandizing" one), moron, twit or asshole, or when you called someone a chicken shit.

>neither eloquence nor mumbo jumbo could be reasonnable substitutes for substance.
Sure--that's what postmodern literary theory is for. Anyhow, I look forward to more substance here on such clearly related topics as electrons, Clinton, Iraq, and speculations on whether a given poster's first language is English. Received on Thu Jun 11 2009 - 00:12:26 CEST

Original text of this message