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

On Jan 24, 9:42 pm, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> Lemming <thiswillbou..._at_bumblbee.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:07:32 -0800, Gene Wirchenko <g..._at_ocis.net>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Lemming <thiswillbou..._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.

Yes, this can be a trying way to discuss topics, with many people who use various bullying techniques in their writing, so it is likely quite common that people leave because they prefer to play on a playground where the bully is not present. So, you are right, Gene, and your experience is far from unique, I'm quite sure.

> >So have I; although when I look back my own responses to my
> >attacker(s) were more likely the real reason I left. With me, it started that some people picked on me, get this, for
> signing my posts
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
> One particular jerk carried it way past that, and for a while, a
> search with Google on "Wirchenko" had a top link with a title calling
> me a fascist.

Yes, this is an unfortunate thing with the internet in general. As you are likely aware, I have had similar experiences. I recall what we said on the playground as children "sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." This just isn't true for most people. When a person decides to call someone else a name, it is more a reflection on that person than on their target, but it can be hurtful none-the-less.

> >>>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. I do not challenge that it is possible or even likely, but that
> is not proof.
>
> >>>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.

I really should have thought of that possibly reaction before posting and skipped that PS. I can typically respond by e-mail when people write me (on any topic), but ended up with one instance where my reply bounced and I did not know the no-name writer, so thought I would get the message out this way. If you doubt I have fans, then ask those who have come to hear me speak or check archives on comp.databases.pick. You have missed the mark on this one. I do not know if you are big enough to retract the statement.

> >> Trolling is about all she does. (We are talking years here.)

I do not troll, unless I do not understand the term properly. I became interested in this topic in 2002 and was pointed to this forum by someone. I read for a while and then posted, recognizing that my opinions and questions regarding relational theory might not be of interest to everyone. I was and am definitely interested in the topic.  If this were a comp.databases.relational.theory group, then perhaps my questions and opinions could be seen as trolling, but it isn't. I was naive to think that those who were disinterested would ignore the threads, just as I do with threads of no interest to me. I did realize very soon that the tone of the group was very nasty to many people. I was not the only person who thought that and we made some attempts to clean up the nastiness. Unfortunately, that didn't last.

>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? No. It is that she does so dishonestly.

I consider that a cruel attack. It is the reason I am bothering to respond at all I value my honesty. I can accept challenges to my intelligence. I am sure there are more intelligent people on this list, by whatever intelligence measurements one might make. However, I've been told all my life that I was intelligent, so I don't need the affirmation from cdt. I will say that I am not stupid, however, even if I sometimes say stupid things. I can also accept challenges to my knowledge, as I am surely ignorant of many things (who isn't?) But I absolutely do not engage in discussion here dishonestly.

> Some tactics she has
> used are I-may-be-dumb-but,

If I have ever called myself dumb, you are right that it was a rhetorical technique (one many girls are taught from an early age), or I was suggesting to someone who called me such that if that were the case, it does not remove the question. Otherwise I'm not sure when I have called myself that, as I am aware of my ignorance, but do not typically consider myself dumb on the whole and no one outside of cdt has ever suggested to me that I was (Ok, maybe my brother once or twice when growing up)

> unsubstatiated claims (even after being
> repeatedly asked to back up her statements),

But isn't that the point of having a discussion? If I could substantiate all of my opinions and intuitions that are based in my own experiences and knowledge, then I would not need to discuss the topics.

> nitpicking and vagueness
> to the point of derailing threads.

I have never intentionally derailed a thread, but I am aware that I have done so and I apologize for doing so. What one sees as nitpicking another sees as an attempt to gain clarity. It is common that those with a similar background will understand the shorthand terminology of others from that background.

> Then, there is her infamous rape
> post after which she then left for a while, but unfortunately, came
> back.

Yes, that was unfortunate and a low point in my life. I felt brutalized. It took a while before I could come back to the playground where BB was. Not everyone is strong enough at every point in their life to handle bullies properly. I wrote what I felt at the time and was later surprised to see I had responded that way. Again, a low point in my life, very difficult, so I wrould prefer you not bring it up again.

> Vagueness is not so bad if the person refines his statement, but
> Dawn just keeps at the vagueness.

I ask questions here in order to refine vagueness and gain more precision. Because I come from a different background than many here, my own shorthand is understood by some and not others. So, just as I ask questions about the imprecise statements of others, it makes sense that you would have such questions of me. I also have opinions without proof, which, again, is why I wish to discuss them.

> Honest disagreement is one thing. Dishonesty in debate is very
> disruptive of a discussion group.

I completely agree and I want to make it clear that I am an honest person and do not even know what you think I have said that is dishonest. I have a particular angle and my own personality, as does everyone else. I would hope that those who have no interest in my questions or opinions that I state in order to discuss and refine them would ignore my postings. I do not appreciate the bullying in this forum, but have been trying to tune it out.

Take care. --dawn

>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gene Wirchenko
>
> Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
> I have preferences.
> You have biases.
> He/She has prejudices.
Received on Thu Jan 25 2007 - 15:31:02 CET