Re: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count: Was: What databases have taught me
Date: 28 Jun 2006 20:35:25 -0700
> George wrote:
> > Bob Badour wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't recall claiming to have defined it. I described it's origin and
> > > construction. Do you see what I mean by your stupidity preventing you
> > > from comprehending relatively simple english? You are not smart enough
> > > to understand what is actually written so you respond to something
> > > entirely different instead.
> > Now you "don't recall claiming to have defined it", here's what you
> > said:
> > > OO is a computational model and not a paradigm unless by 'paradigm' one
> > > means an example of a computational model. Idiot. Further, it is a
> > > computational model comprising a collection of features useful for
> > > constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable
> > > state machines or otherwise picked arbitrarily in the mid to late 1960's
> > > for what seemed expedient at the time.
> > You say what you believe OO is and what it is not, that looks like an
> > (informal) definition to me.
> As near as I can tell, you are the only one who thinks that with
> the above paragraph, Bob was attempting to define OO.
> Certainly I don't think that, and it is also clear Bob doesn't
> think that.
Try my description:
"The relational model comprises a collection of features useful for constructing large unpredictable state machines from small predictable state machines"
- Is that statement true of false?
- Is it a good descriptor?
- Should I be calling other people idiot on the strength of such a statement?
George. Received on Thu Jun 29 2006 - 05:35:25 CEST