Re: OT - Best way to handle dbdebunk

From: <>
Date: 12 Feb 2006 04:00:49 -0800
Message-ID: <>

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
> 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.
> Cheers! --dawn

I'd go for c). He's a bad boy - and he likes being bad. Don't play with him.

Mike. Received on Sun Feb 12 2006 - 13:00:49 CET

Original text of this message