Re: Argument for 1NF by counter-example

From: Laconic2 <>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:23:30 -0400
Message-ID: <>

"Gene Wirchenko" <> wrote in message
> "Laconic2" <> wrote:
> >"robert" <> wrote in message
> >
> >> anyone else is welcome to refute Pascal, should they wish to.
> >
> >Almost everything Pascal says is drivel. QED.
> >
> >Now do you get the point?
> It may not be the point you intended. I have read a lot of
> Pascal's writing on I see him using logic to advance an
> argument. This is in contrast to your statement above, which is not a
> refutation of Pascal, but merely an ad hom.

My bad. I was, as Tony pointed out, being ironic in my original remark. I was making ironic reference to Robert's use of the word "drivel" earlier. I had thought that you caught this irony, and were responding with irony of your own. It took Tony to clarify things.

The "point" in "now do you get the point" was this: "Calling something 'drivel' doesn't prove anything." In case anybody is still confused, I rarely refer to someone else's ideas as ""drivel".

The closest I've come to that was my topic on "stupid database tricks". And I note that one of the things Pascal inveighs against is "denormalizing for performance". And I would agree wit hPascal, up to a point. When I hear "we denormalized for performance", that's strong circumstantial evidence that I'm about to be shown another stupid database trick.

Every now and then, however, it turns out to be a smart database trick! Received on Wed Oct 27 2004 - 21:23:30 CEST

Original text of this message