Re: Interested in a moderated theory forum?

"Paul G. Brown" <paul_geoffrey_brown_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message news:57da7b56.0401251138.2ace16f2_at_posting.google.com...

> > I've noticed that the TTM cult leaders tend to be like that.
>
> In fairness, Fabian Pascal has written extensively and with originality
> on these topics. He's become much more grumpy in recent times and I
think
> that's because many people who set themselves up as experts read
*nothing*
> about these subjects.

Indeed. I've been reading FPs books and articles since the early 80s. I forget the name of his first book, but as a brief and lucid introduction to relational database theory for the busy practitioner I've yet to see its like. At about the same time he used to publish regularly in an obscure little rag called "HP [Hewlett Packard] Professional". Those articles were almost uniquely informative for working programmers and DBAs at the time, and written in a very patient tone.

If I'd done such good work all those years ago but now find practically everyone publishing proposals for radical improvements to something they plainly don't understand, I think I'd be grumpy. But Pascal isn't grumpy. If you ever meet him you will find he is tenacious and focussed, and he can usually defend his position, but when he can't he simply admits that he needs to think about it some more and asks questions. What more could a reasonable person having a reasonable debate reasonably expect? Would you ask him to pretend--even briefly--that there is merit in something he can see plainly is wrong? What useful purpose outside of courtship, parenting, or neighborliness is served by polite fictions? Would he be doing a service by allowing someone to cling to a delusion? Would he be doing a service to those who would and could learn, by expending his energy on one who won't or can't? Pastoral care is not part of his job.

Certain people on this group might not have the most comforting bedside manner, but the most dangerous ones generally ooze with it, and with what I suspect is faux-reasonableness too. (After all, who, confident that they have a sure-fire killer argument within reach, would offer it meekly, pretending that it does anything else but utterly demolish their opponent's position?)

Roy Hann Received on Mon Feb 02 2004 - 13:42:53 CET