Re: Database design
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 04:36:19 GMT
Message-ID: <7TRKf.13464$yK1.7755_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Mark Johnson wrote:
> Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com> wrote:
>>Mark Johnson wrote: >>>"x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote:
>
>>>I made the obvious point that academic papers tend to be criticized >>>for their trivial examples, which perhaps are hiding a problem with >>>the scheme, or for other reasons. And I'm just repeating myself, over >>>and over again, to say all this. Some had agreed, although they didn't >>>believe I should complain of the practice.
>
>>A serious question - is English your first language?
>
> That's not a serious question.
It was. I have read a lot of your previous posts and coherency is not an apparent hallmark. So be it - it makes ascertaining your interest a little difficult at times.
It wasn't but even so, tough! I gave you an out!
If you choose to write carelessly and enjoin me contextually to views I definitely don't support then get used to it.
> likely from
> someone unable to answer the previous questions? Yes?
Apart from rebutting any FUD, you have provided precious little rationale to encourage investing in detailed expressions on the example you put forward a while back.
>>I did not agree that academic papers use trivial examples
>
> Then you are free to hold to your minority position.
No problem!
>>Furthermore I do not agree that this is in itself an issue
>
> It is when one is a student.
How so? I don't understand how the student is ill served by the current state of affairs.
>>Secondly I most strongly disagree any implication that this could be >>masking a problem in the RM.
>
> I said nothing of the sort.
OK - your expression on rereading, even if lodged in CDT, is seemingly aimed generally at academia. Therefore I retract the RM specificity. Whether there _is_ a conspiracy is another thing.
>>Finally I categorically reject any inference that I endorse your opinion
>
> So noted. But if one were to speak of added expense in producing
> 'meaningful' texts and papers, then if one were to so do, it would
> suggest that the complaint was spot on with regard to what is more
> readily available.
Que! Not at all sure where you are going with this.
Cheers (really), Frank. Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 05:36:19 CET