Re: Resiliency To New Data Requirements

JOG wrote:
> dawn wrote:
> > [snippage]
> > > No, I think the web is too entrenched now. It'd take a revolution not
> > > an evolution.
> >
> > Like some ignorant, moronic girl trying to move the industry away from
> > SQL, right?
>
> ...?
>
> > [snippage]
> > I've learned a lot from you guys. I came here to learn and I have. I
> > have learned more about human nature than I really wanted to learn, but
> > ah well.
>
> Bad dawn - you know It takes two to tango. :(

Even when sitting in one of the reddest counties in the US and not supporting GWB, I was able to dialog with people without the intimidation techniques and bullying I have experienced here (not by you). There have been no attempts to drive me out of town. So, this is a new experience and not a fun one. So, I'm disappointed you thought that was a bad statement on my part.

> > [snippage]
> > So, we still differ on terminology.
>
> that's good hey. terminology generates a lot of miscommunication but
> ultimately it is a minor thing.
>
> > [snippage]
> > A theory, like relational theory, might be tight mathematically, but that
> > is no proof that it is the best way to model propositions, for example.
>
> Well the thing is we all agree with this. I doubt anyone has the
> naivite to say the RM is the final word and that an improved theory may
> not arise in the millennia ahead of us.

I'm really glad to hear that.

> > I might not have said that well, but I'm clicking to send anyway.
> > Cheers! --dawn
> >
> > Thanks for the dialog, jog. --dawn
>
> no problem. (dialogue by the way. US variations are so colourful...)
you mean "colorful," right? (some might suggest the comma is in the wrong place too) Received on Wed Aug 16 2006 - 19:09:05 CEST