Re: OT Bull-fight avoidance

mAsterdam wrote:
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
> > mAsterdam wrote:
> > >It takes more stamina to show ignorance in this
> > >newsgroup now, than it did say a year ago. I have
> > >recently refrained from asking questions revealing
> > >ignorance because of anticipated reactions here - even
> > >when it would just be about exact wording.
> >
> > Strange, not my experience here at all. I dropped by a
> > few weeks ago, readily admitted I was ignorant,
> > participated a little, asked some questions, and was
> > treated VERY well. When asking database related
> > questions I tried to do so with humility and was not
> > vociferous. Could this have been a factor in my
> > treatment?
>
> But it also helped, that you are very willing to accept
> the RM - even thought you do have some gaps in your
> knowledge about it - no problem for you here, a few months
> of reading will help you putting it in perspective.
>
> The point is that if you weren't very willing to accept
> the RM, my guess is you would not be treated as well, even
> if you would have been as humble as you were/are.

I understand what you are saying. However (and this is really key) "accept" is inaccurate. It is not that I willingly accept the RM. What one ultimately accepts as true, how that changes from day to day, how one employs those beliefs in their work, etc, is a personal matter that is largely irrelevant (to cdt discourse I mean).

What does matter is that one is willing to politely ask, listen, and try to comprehend the arguments of /others/. In other words, for achieving efficient polite discourse, /internal/ acceptance is far less important than /external/ openness.

[warning : only dusk-til-dawn stuff remains below]

> You weren't humble towards dawn.

I won't deny this. Though I never claimed that I was. I only claimed that "When asking database related questions I tried to do so with humility". Most of my DW interaction so far has been related to logic (as in reasoning) and recently (in this thread) general implementation issues that are not "database related".

> Could her bullying by several posters here been a factor
> in that?

No, this was not a factor. Rather statements such as these from the first post of her's I read:

  "I just did a talk where I argued that [Codd] took what   was logically good thinking and then made a key statement   of religious zeal that we have been living with for   decades now." -- DW

  "I'd suggest that it is time to abandon ... the relational   model" -- DW

  "I have a master's degree in mathetmatics, and it seems to   me that Codd's use of simple relations for persisting   language propositions is flawed at its core."

  "It's time to kill the relational model and gain some   agility back into the development process" -- DW

Frankly put, that was unacceptable unmitigated /arrogance/. Especially for someone new to the community as she stated:

  "Since I have not spoken in this forum before ..." -- DW

And to this day her posts still exude arrogance and sophistry. And even when a basic logical fallacy is pointed out with a clear precise example:

KHD wrote :
> DW wrote :
> > That attributes specified to every type of DBMS must have
> > max length constraints for performance reasons? That DBMS
> > developers (those who write DBMS software) have no choice
> > but to write software that requires or performs
> > significantly better if there are max length constraints
> > on attributes?
>
> What the? Where are you getting this "must have", "no
> choice", "requires", "significantly" crap from? Nobody has
> said that. You are putting words into my mouth and creating
> a false dichotomy (yet another logical fallacy). Please stop
> Dawn. Have some respect for the time other people take to
> write and actually read what they wrote. Let me quote myself
> from /another/ post which you seem to have ignored.
>
> KHD wrote :
> > It's not that /every/ software /needs/ to be told
> > constraints. It's that software /implementors/ can often
> > implement more efficient solutions if they are given
> > additional information (constraints).
>
> This DIRECTLY answers those two question. Do you see the
>"not ... every ... needs", "can often", "more efficient"?
> Now do you see how rude your "must have", "no choice",
> "requires", and "significantly" sophistry is?

she fails to recognize the fallacy, fails to recognize that putting words in another's mouth is rude, and instead blames it on my "understanding" and "resonance".

DW wrote:
> No, but I definitely apologize if I was rude. I am clearly
> having a hard time stating this question in a way that you
> can understand ... I would like to be able to get all the
> way to questions that would resonate with you, but I'm
> clearly having trouble doing that.

And, to cap it off, see later pushes the responsibility on ME to "adjust" HER statements:

DW wrote :
> KHD wrote :
> > DW wrote :
> > > I do not understand why a DBMS must be written so that
> > > max length constraints on attributes are important for
> > > its performance.
> >
> > Stop it Dawn! More of this "must" and "important" crap
> > false dichotomy.
>
> If you understand my question then please adjust it so it
> reads as you would have wanted to write it.

ridiculous! Perhaps one of her first statements in cdt is /literally/ true

  "... I'm becoming passionate about this subject and   decided to start making noise." -- DW

Passionate? And then this self-confessed "passionate" accuses other people (even to this day, Codd included) of religious fundamentalism? Astounding! "Noise" truly!

Back to the "accept" point. If DW came here, asked questions politely and carefully without flame bait, /listened/ to others, /tried/ to remain /open/ and /comprehend/, and then decided not /accept/ any of the arguments she heard and went over to the c.d.pick forum and ranted all day about the irrational "religious" c.d.t folks are, probably nobody would care! And she would have had a good experience I bet. But instead she /began/ her experience here by posting (in cdt) the stuff quoted above; simply seems unacceptable; and she (and perhaps the community) has paid the price ever since.

• Keith --