Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> comp.databases.theory -> Re: c.d.theory glossary

Re: c.d.theory glossary

From: Senny <sennomo_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 15:41:32 GMT
Message-ID: <Mkxgc.1096$17.129905@news1.epix.net>


Congratulations, Laura!

You are the 100,000,000TH Usenet user to fall back on attacking someone's spelling as a way to deal with an unwelcome comment! Bonus kudos for attacking one person's ignorance to defend another person's greater ignorance! May
you continue to support the Usenet status quo. You are automatically entered into the final-round sweepstakes for a vacation in Boca Raton!

I don't mean to remove any luster from your classic post, but I feel I should point something out: There is a relevant point in Timothy's message, namely that there are people in this group (among other places) who are happy to spout opinion without any understanding of the topic at hand. These people detract much from the discussions, usually by distracting others with tangents that might have something to do with databases, but little to do with database theory. These ignorant types are unaware that they do not know what they are talking about, which means it is very difficult for them to improve. Others get frustrated with the ignorant ones, resulting in mini flame-wars.

It is unfortunate that Timothy had to make his post about ultracrepidarians; apparently he is one of those people who feels that if you don't occasionally warn people that
there is an ignoramus in the discussion, they will read carelessly, taking everything at face value, regardless of the absence of fact.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, which is why I would not have made such a post...then again, I'd like to think that people don't get into conversations over their heads. Since I hate to see people proving their arrogant ignorance beyond what my bleeding-heart wants to believe, I avoid Usenet. However, when I see a post as golden as yours, a true Usenet gem, I have to speak up.

I will now return to talking to myself in arcane languages, because although I don't get many good answers on database theory that way, at least I am aware of my own ignorance, so I know when not to believe myself. As you may be able tell, my sanity is not compatible with Usenet mediocrity.

Apologies to the group for this venting. May Dijkstra's soul save you all.

--Senny

"Laura Hirsh" <lhirsh_at_gate.net> wrote in message news:u4ugc.12141$l75.421_at_newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Gosh, seems that someone of your obvious intelligence would at least know
> how to use a spelling checker... or they perhaps might even check that
> dictionary of yours for the proper spelling of words before using them.
>
> Educating everyone one Spelling 101,
>
> Laura
>
> "Timothy J. Bruce" <uniblab_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:34519632.0404172044.8742807_at_posting.google.com...
> > mAsterdam et al:
> >
> > I hate to add Yet Another Term, but here is yet another term:
> >
> > ultracrepidarian: (n., adj.) a person who gives opinions beyond her
> > scope of knowledge.
> > Ex: She is obviously an ultracrepidarian judging by her clumsey
> > attempts to debunk what she fails to even comprehend.
> >
> > Educating everyone on ineffibility,
> > Timothy J. Bruce
> > uniblab_at_hotmail.com
> > </RANT>
Received on Sun Apr 18 2004 - 10:41:32 CDT

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US