Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models)

From: <>
Date: 8 Jun 2006 13:19:45 -0700
Message-ID: <>

Bob Badour has said this:
> Some people, who seem unable to recognize ignorant stupidity on their
> own, have criticized me for not explaining my reaction to Robert
> Martin's profound stupidity and ignorance as evidenced by the statements
> Alfredo quoted.

> Actually, Robert shows his profound ignorance of the manipulation, (...)

> Here Robert Martin shows an astonishing incapacity to comprehend
> relatively plain english. Business rules are in the domain of the
> business. Somehow the idiot cannot tell the difference between a
> business and an application.

> I am not sure who Robert Martin refers to when he uses "we" above but I
> assume he means himself and everyone else who is either too stupid or
> too ignorant or both to reason effectively.

> Here he equates predicate logic with a bucket of bits. Here he equates
> set algebra with a bucket of bits. He equates mathematics and logic with
> random bits. This not only shows his profound stupidity and profound
> ignorance, but it also shows his entirely anti-intellectual attitude.
> Not satisfied with his own ignorance and stupidity, he needs to
> encourage others to remain as stupid and as ignorant as he is.

> That suggests to me that he is a predator who feeds off the ignorance of
> others.

> Again, he demonstrates profound ignorance and stupidity. One cannot do
> as he claims unless one re-implements all of the functions of a dbms.
> While OO proponents often attempt to do this, they fail to re-implement
> most of the functions and what functions they do implement are generally
> incomplete and erroneous.

> Were I prone to armchair psychology, I would label the above
> 'projection'. The idiot accuses others of doing exactly what he does:
> selling misconceptions. Just like any other snake-oil salesman, he sells
> ignorance.

> The idiot seems to think behavior can only refer to state transitions
> while failing to see the utility of manipulation and derivation for
> deriving a new state given an existing state and a transition.

> All of the points I make in this post have been made several times
> already in this thread. Those who petulantly demanded I repeat these
> arguments here are no doubt just as ignorant and as stupid at Mr. Martin
> himself because they proved themselves incapable to recognize the same
> arguments when given elsewhere.

and this ends the short (sarcasm) section on insulting quotes! mind you, that's just one message. there's more. ;-)

> Here, I think it suffices to point out that his only support for his
> ignorant assertion is ignorant assertion.

and about "supporting ignorant assertions with ignorant assertions" I'd like to quote:

> OO is an ad-hoc collection of features useful for creating large
> unpredictable state machines out of small predictable state machines.

blabbering about this very "informed" assertion like a parrot in each reply, paints one in the same light as the person one so blatantly criticizes.

next time remember never to argue in public with an idiot. people looking might not be able to tell who's the idiot.

maybe people don't understand "substantive arguments" because the latter may be full of "informed assertions" as the above, and not because they're "idiots", "ignorants", "not-Bob Badour like"

and yes, the problem-domain level abstractions of my applications don't know about the DBMS, zilch. So that if my CUSTOMER wants it running on a WhatevaServer 6711 I can deliver. And get paid. As opposed to "Sorry, you need a database that costs 20 grand per client license." Received on Thu Jun 08 2006 - 22:19:45 CEST

Original text of this message