Re: OT - Best way to handle dbdebunk

dawn wrote:
> About a year ago my youngest (college-age) daughter told me that she
> googled me and the first thing that came up was a site that blasted me.
> I told her what one of my early-career mentors told me: if no one is
> speaking ill of you, you likely are not doing anything. Just because
> the other moms didn't have web pages indicating they were stupid was no
> reason for her to be concerned.
>
> Well, now Fabian has a new Dawn page (I'm so proud) at
> http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/2883305.htm I sent him an e-mail and
> asked if he could correct one thing which is not to call the one page
> DAWN WOLTHUIS' PROOF since I had taken an honest shot at answering
> Date's questions in a paper I bought from them. That was my purpose --
> it was not intended as a proof of anything. I realize I had tongue in
> cheek with a statement about how mathematical relations are ordered so
> MV could be seen as more relational than those that insist on no
> ordering of the attributes. I made it clear I knew it wasn't
> relational according to current definitions, however. I have never
> considered PICK to be a relational database even if vendors call it
> such. He declined to make any such change, insisting on calling my
> responses a proof. It is quite an interesting approach to how to
> address your customers.
>
> So, what is my point or question? You can see that the URL above
> contains many ad hominem attacks. I don't wish to stoop to that level
> of discourse, but I also don't want to be a wimp and let his statements
> stand unchallenged.
>
> Should I...
>
> a) Put up a web page pointing to the dbdebunk pages and responding
> b) Put up a web page without pointing to these pages, but correcting
> misstatements
> c) Ignore it (other than this thread in cdt)
> d) Stoop to this level of discourse and start throwing insults back
> (you can vote for this one, but it just isn't like me)
>
> By the way, thanks to a few of you who have sent me encouraging notes
> after seeing that page. I'm pretty tough and able to cope with being
> called stupid and ignorant by Pascal. It gave me one restless night
> after I read it a week or so ago, but otherwise I sleep just fine. I'm
> pleased that my blog has gotten attention. I might have hoped for a
> more positive spin on that attention, but ah well.
>
G'day Dawn,

Option b) in a low-band way seems to me like the best option now that you have your blog up and running. Of course you would not be surprised that IMO you are tilting at windmills on the subject matter side, but that is your prerogative of course.

BTW having perused the DBD pages I must admit to infrequent readers of this NG some alignment with FP's expressions on the RM vs MV debate. Let me say for the record however this commonality extends only as far as Codd's original concepts and my view on CD/FP/HD subsequent offerings is somewhat less accommodating!

Cheers, Frank. Received on Sun Feb 12 2006 - 02:01:28 CET