Re: Advice on SQL and records

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:1124903407.132404.76740_at_g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> David Cressey wrote:
> >
> > But "language police" invariably obstruct
> > clarity of thought rather than facilitating it.
> > That's why I made the reference to 1984.
>
> "Invariably" seems too strong a work here.
> I'd certainly go with "sometimes." But it's
> often the case (as I think Gene was saying)
> that clarity of thought *comes from* precise
> language, and that's what the language police
> want. (The good ones, anyway.)
>
> Hey, what was your post about the difference
> between table/row/column and relation/tuple/attribute
> if not language policing? :-)
>
>

I don't think so. I don't think what I was doing was language policing at all.

I was offering up what I think of as a standard for consideration by everyone else. That's not language policing. Even more different from language policing is the wonderful work that mAsterdam has done for us in maintaining a glossary, enabling those who want to use consistent terminology to do so. (I haven't thanked you for that, mAsterdam, but I should).

The language police are those who try to make other people feel guilty, ashamed, humiliated, or even downright frightened for expressing their own thoughts in their own words. And such people invariably, yes invariably, obstruct clarity of thought instead of facilitating it.

Ike Clanton. Received on Wed Aug 24 2005 - 23:45:49 CEST