Re: OT: writing style (was: Database design)

From: Mark Johnson <>
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 03:56:09 -0800
Message-ID: <>

mAsterdam <> wrote:

>> No, it wasn't. So I asked him for some clarification, as you can see
>> above. And then you butted in. And why you try to clog up this ng with
>> such pointless messages as this, is still beyond me.

>He is not clogging up this ng, he is trying to tell you something.
>Read carefully: he is /not/ calling you a troll.

I recall that you asked me to apologize to Spight, because you weren't sure he had fallen to calling people names. Shortly after I mistakenly apologized, his intention became clear. And I also realized that I had made a mistake, and should have followed my hunch and instinct on that. And I'll try not to repeat that mistake again. You don't give any indication of having discovered that, yourself, by the existence this very message. So I said what I thought needed to be said to him, at that time, when he finally said that. I'm not going to repeat it.

>If you are not you should find out WHY you get this criticism.

It's not honest criticism. It's outright abuse. It's the pot calling the kettle black, when the kettle isn't even scorched. And you should be on my side, in this. As for the reason, it's something about which I can only guess. I suspect that they found themselves in a corner defending the indefensible. They were embarrassed by that and decided to just lash out. I've said that. But that's just a guess. I don't know why they have behaved like this. But again, this is never a test for whether something is true, and particularly on something like Usenet which is known to harbor cliques of all sorts. They do this because they know they can get away it. Perhaps they've never been told, before, that they ought not to behave like this. And they do this, perhaps, because they think some will imagine that a complaint is justified simply because it is mindlessly repeated by more than one person. But something doesn't become true just by repetition.

You need to consider the subject, any arguments, the facts as such - and not personality, nor popularity. Popularity is a very fickle thing. It's no kind of reliable standard. Many things which need to be said, or questioned, are not initially popular with some clique. Need I state the obvious? Received on Sat Feb 25 2006 - 12:56:09 CET

Original text of this message