Re: Nulls, integrity, the closed world assumption and events

On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:07:32 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <genew_at_ocis.net> wrote:

>Lemming <thiswillbounce_at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>There are two rules of usenet which I have never yet seen broken.
>>
>>1) Nobody ever leaves a group because of what someone else says; they
>>only ever leave because of what *they* say. (Or because the group has
>>no value to them, but that's another story.)
>
> How would you know?

Observation, and personal experience. But yes, it's a generalisation, and the problem with generalisations is that there are (almost[1]) always exceptions.

> I have left a forum due to bullying by another. I did not make a
>production of it. I simply left, and it most certainly was due to my
>treatment by another. His remarks were way past simple rudeness.

So have I; although when I look back my own responses to my attacker(s) were more likely the real reason I left.

>>2) People who claim that although they are a "lone voice crying in the
>>wilderness" but have lots of people emailing them in support are
>>liars.
>
> Again, how would you know?

Oh, come on; you know I'm right (exceptions notwithstanding, as above). But I'm absolutely certain no exceptions apply in dawn's case.

>>OTOH: keep fighting your corner. You've got an opinion, share it.
>>You might even be right. But *please* don't resort to troll tactics
>>like claiming fictitious, off-group "supporters". It's transparent
>>and crass.
>
> Trolling is about all she does. (We are talking years here.) I
>finally killfiled her and have enjoyed the improvement. My killfile
>is set to mark her messages read, so if I decide to check out a post,
>I can. So far, what I have seen in quoted material leads me to
>believe that my killfiling decision came later than it should have.

I dunno. What's the real problem? Is it that she promotes a non-relational database model in a general database theory group which happens to be over-populated with RM practitioners?

Lemming

-- 
Curiosity *may* have killed Schrodinger's cat.

[1] Hey, if every rule has an exception, then so does this one.
Right?