Re: Database design

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's a personal attack,

>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.

Maybe we can agree on that.

>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.

>Apart from rebutting any FUD

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.

A number of examples, now.

>>>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?

It's a problem if the student wishes to learn in their role as student. If they have some other purpose, then perhaps you might be on to something.

>>>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.

Actually, that's right. I'm sure the same could be found of papers at Citeseer, if I recall. But that wasn't immediately what I had in mind.

>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.

You seemed to agree perhaps without realizing it (it turns out). But now you insist that not only is such justified, but that such is not the case, as well?

As the great Gen'l Patton probably never said - anyhoo. Received on Wed Feb 22 2006 - 11:00:20 CET