Re: OT Bull-fight avoidance
Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 14:29:52 GMT
Message-ID: <AzDeg.14492$A26.342801_at_ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>
Keith H Duggar wrote:
> 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.
Please note the important distinction between "not willing to accept" and "having not yet accepted". The first is the very definition of closed-minded while the second indicates mere skepticism.
One cannot be simultaneously closed-minded and humble. Closed-mindedness is not only arrogant but rude and disrespectful in that it wastes the time of everyone else. mAsterdam seems to think he can be rude to everyone here and that no one should ever have the temerity to note the rudeness.
Bollocks on that!
> 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).
Actually, the key word in the phrase is "willing". Whether one has or has not accepted a particular point of view, if one is unwilling to accept different points of view, one is closed-minded and frankly lacks intellectual honesty.
Having twit-filtered mAsterdam for intellectually dishonest closed-mindedness and for wasting people's time, his phraseology comes as no surprise to me at all.
Even with this explanation, I don't expect him to get it.
> 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?
I find it interesting who mAsterdam perceives are the bullies.
Picture a scene at a wedding reception where one of the guests is a self-indulgent drunk who pushes her way onto the stage, grabs the microphone and proceeds to 'perform' a 'comedy' routine comprising a series of uninteresting bigoted jokes that are sure to offend the inlaws. When the self-indulgent drunk does not get the applause she demands, she blames the other guests for not understanding the jokes.
In mAsterdam's world, the bully is the person who says: "You are drunk and rude, and you are making everyone uncomfortable. Put down the mike and get off the stage."
The self-aggrandizing ignorants are self-indulgent, disrespectful, rude, and they insist on shoving their way to where they do not belong. Are those not the acts of bullies?
> 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".
Actually, there is a deeper logical fallacy that you missed. Her original question is a loaded question.
When you come to accept that Dawn is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorant, you will understand why she used that particular sophistry. She has no interest in learning the answer to a question.
She wants only to promote a meme and that meme is described by the false axiom that loads her question. The more she manipulates you into discussing the question, the more times the meme gets repeated.
Eventually, a gross misconception gains wide acceptance while the retard claims credit for exposing the 'problem'. A problem that never was!
In this way, the self-aggrandizing ignorants spread misconception and ignorance for their own benefit and at great harm to this entire field. A much more effective response to her is to note that she is a self-aggrandizing ignorant, to tell her to piss off and to stop wasting everyone's time.
> 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.
Ahhh... the coup de grace! Now, the self-aggrandizing ignorant claims the high-ground by dismissing you as too stupid to understand her question. A question that you clearly understood on its face.
She counted on you to give her the benefit of any doubt no matter how small, which you did, to manipulate you to her own ends. Finally, she repaid you by implying you are stupid.
In the end, was she worth the effort you put into her?
[snip] Received on Mon May 29 2006 - 16:29:52 CEST