Re: OT Bull-fight avoidance

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.
>
> 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/.

It certainly did not seem that you try to comprehend even my questions.

> 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

What I failed to realize back then and have learned since that time is that many people in this forum equated "database.theory" with "relational.database.theory" so even after reading a lot of posts from the list, I thought there were OO, XML, and possibly IMS, MUMPS, etc perspectives in a discussion on database theory.

In other words, I did not know this forum was one where one could be a heretic, I thought it was one where you could discuss database theory. I soon realized that some segment on cdt formed a religious strong-hold. That seemed wrong, or at least very unfortunate, but I tried to change my writing style to accomodate to some extent. I asked at some point if that was the intent of what the list -- was it supposed to be comp.relational.database.theory with no room for other discussions. Enough people agreed that this was not just for the RM that I decided I really cold put forth my opinions and questions and be challenged. So, I recognize that I overestimated the logical, academic nature of the group up front, so I stepped on the toes of those who thought this to be more of a crdt ng. I have no problem with people disagreeing and arguing with me, and don't mind being challenged. But I don't like walking on eggshells with every question I have either, prefering to be able to state my opinions to get a dialog going.

> And to this day her posts still exude arrogance and

More so than yours? I had never before cdt been told I was an arrogant person (nor stupid, for that matter), although how does one know? I don't think my ego is out of line and suspect in any independent evaluation it would be in the bottom third of those who speak up on this list, but my writing style might need work. The extreme religious zeal from some in this forum was a surprise to me and I suspect I didn't step in on the right foot to be permitted by some people to even ask questions, much less voice opinions.

> 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?

You do understand I was trying to ask you what you meant, right?

> > 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".

You are right that I don't see the logical fallacy. I will admit that my writing could have been clearer, however.

> 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:

No, I am asking that you try to understand my question. Are you willing to give it a try? If so, what question do you think I am asking in my OP in this thread, given all of the added explanations I have tried to give? --dawn Received on Mon May 29 2006 - 21:18:02 CEST