Re: Database design
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 02:00:20 -0800
Message-ID: <ntcov1p885ph8g56pot8sbn30966vea2gt_at_4ax.com>
Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com> wrote:
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>>>"x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote:
>> That's not a serious question.
>It was.
No, I characterized it as:
>It wasn't but even so, tough!
That's what happens when you can't answer simple questions. You attack the messenger. But it shows you have no argument, no answer, and nothing to offer.
>If you choose to write carelessly and enjoin me contextually to views
You could also take care to read what is written. Many examples have now been offered. Many! I don't think you've tackled a single one, preferring perhaps diversions, instead. Entire paragraphs went unanswered. If you didn't understand, you might have asked for clarification, unless discussing things and teaching and/or learning are something you feel in appropriate to ngs. That I don't know. But I myself certainly don't think that way.
But you haven't addressed anything, however you characterize it. That's all I'm saying.
>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!
Stubborn. That's not always a virtue.
The general complaint with pointlessly trivial academic examples is a quite common one.
>>>Furthermore I do not agree that this is in itself an issue
>> It is when one is a student.
>How so?
>>>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.
>Whether there _is_ a conspiracy is another thing.
What? ! conspiracy . . ?
>>>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!
Portuguese ? for . . what?
The general complaint with pointlessly trivial academic examples is a quite common one.
As the great Gen'l Patton probably never said - anyhoo. Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 11:00:20 CET