Re: foundations of relational theory?
From: alauts <albert_leland_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:39:18 -0400
Message-ID: <Ctadna3OSZmHFgeiRVn-hQ_at_comcast.com>
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:K5mdnVW6QOnLJwuiU-KYuA_at_golden.net...
> >
> > Paul, there are reasons I observed long ago that Dawn is an idiot. Dawn
> > substitutes irrational emotive criteria for rational objective criteria.
One
> > can measure and quantify simplicity and complexity. Feeling plays no
part in
> > forming a valid conclusion.
>
> Every human uses a combination of emotion and rational thought
> all contexts. True, the percentage will be different from person
> to person, but the mix is there, always.
>
> (I recognize that I have not substantiated this claim in any way.)
>
> For myself, I find it extremely useful and clarifying to debate
> with people who hold different views than myself. This is
> the essential reason I'm on Usenet: to learn through exposure
> to new ideas, and debates thereon.
>
> I happen to believe, with some degree of education, that
> the relational model is superior to the MV model. Of course,
> I don't know all that much about the MV model, so my
> ability to compare the two is limited. By engaging in
> this debate, one of three things will happen:
>
> 1) I will discover that the MV model is superior to
> the relational model, for some measure of superiority.
> 2) I will discover that they each have areas of strength
> and weakness.
> 3) I will be able to learn exactly and precisely what
> weaknesses the MV model has relative to the relational
> model, deepening my understanding and apprecation
> for relational.
>
> Now, I have a strong guess as to which one it will be,
> but no matter what, I'm going to learn. In this exchange,
> I can't lose!
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. Maybe for someone else who's already done this
> a lot, the benefit will be much less. For instance, I
> don't hang out much on comp.lang.java.programmer,
> any more, because I've already done every intra-Java
> debate to death.
>
>
Received on Sat Oct 25 2003 - 16:39:18 CEST
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 10:39:18 -0400
Message-ID: <Ctadna3OSZmHFgeiRVn-hQ_at_comcast.com>
Green eggs and ham.
Try it. You'll like it.
Albert
"Marshall Spight" <mspight_at_dnai.com> wrote in message news:J0omb.23423$HS4.91063_at_attbi_s01...
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message
news:K5mdnVW6QOnLJwuiU-KYuA_at_golden.net...
> >
> > Paul, there are reasons I observed long ago that Dawn is an idiot. Dawn
> > substitutes irrational emotive criteria for rational objective criteria.
One
> > can measure and quantify simplicity and complexity. Feeling plays no
part in
> > forming a valid conclusion.
>
> Every human uses a combination of emotion and rational thought
> all contexts. True, the percentage will be different from person
> to person, but the mix is there, always.
>
> (I recognize that I have not substantiated this claim in any way.)
>
> For myself, I find it extremely useful and clarifying to debate
> with people who hold different views than myself. This is
> the essential reason I'm on Usenet: to learn through exposure
> to new ideas, and debates thereon.
>
> I happen to believe, with some degree of education, that
> the relational model is superior to the MV model. Of course,
> I don't know all that much about the MV model, so my
> ability to compare the two is limited. By engaging in
> this debate, one of three things will happen:
>
> 1) I will discover that the MV model is superior to
> the relational model, for some measure of superiority.
> 2) I will discover that they each have areas of strength
> and weakness.
> 3) I will be able to learn exactly and precisely what
> weaknesses the MV model has relative to the relational
> model, deepening my understanding and apprecation
> for relational.
>
> Now, I have a strong guess as to which one it will be,
> but no matter what, I'm going to learn. In this exchange,
> I can't lose!
>
>
> Marshall
>
> PS. Maybe for someone else who's already done this
> a lot, the benefit will be much less. For instance, I
> don't hang out much on comp.lang.java.programmer,
> any more, because I've already done every intra-Java
> debate to death.
>
>
Received on Sat Oct 25 2003 - 16:39:18 CEST