Re: Database design

From: Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:42:16 GMT
Message-ID: <saaLf.14174$yK1.5457_at_news-server.bigpond.net.au>


Mark Johnson wrote:
> 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.

FWICT there aren't any messages - not coherent ones at least.

> Maybe we can agree on that.

So, no surprise, the answer is no!
>

>>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.

Fatuous drivel!

>>Apart from rebutting any FUD

>
> But you haven't addressed anything, however you characterize it.
> That's all I'm saying.

You are entitled to your opinion - I disagree with it.

>>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.

... or an independent thinker rather than a herd animal.

> That's not always a virtue.

I trust Natural Selection will take care of that.

> 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.

I take it you are a student and have identified this "shortcoming" from your recent experiences?

>>>>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.

I'm not familiar with that resource - on querying it (at citeseer.ist.psu.edu) it "encounters an internal error" either being "overloaded" or the "CGI is busted". A temporary state of affairs I presume?

>>Whether there _is_ a conspiracy is another thing.

>
> What? ! conspiracy . . ?

You sound like a theorist to me.

>>>>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?

Never seen Fawlty Towers?

> 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?

Sigh - you really are struggling - I'll restate it all again without any conjunctives, adjectives etc.

Text books - simple examples - true - useful (i.e. not pointless not trivial)!

Academic papers - complex examples (to the degree mandated to convey the concepts) - true - useful (i.e. not pointless not trivial).

> As the great Gen'l Patton probably never said - anyhoo.

Who in their right mind rates him as great?

Cheers, Frank. Received on Thu Feb 23 2006 - 04:42:16 CET

Original text of this message