Re: NULLS equals NULLS ?
Date: 28 Feb 2007 06:54:06 -0800
On Feb 27, 6:18 pm, "Bruce C. Baker" <bcbake..._at_cox.net> wrote:
> "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> On 26 fév, 23:31, "Bruce C. Baker" <bcbake..._at_cox.net> wrote:
> > "Cimode" <cim..._at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Once again Censorship has striken....
> > > A letter from the editor...with my response to him...It is coming from
> > > SQLServerCentral.com after I exposed a self aggrandizing ignorant...I
> > > am probably banned by now...
> > > Ladies and gentlemen...
> > > I have received the following letter from the Moderator Steve Jones...
> > > It should be censored in the next few minutes but it is an
> > > intimidation attempt...I let people judge for themselves (Probably my
> > > last post in this board as my account will probably get removed
> > > quickly...)
> > >>Dear Sir or Madam,
> > >>I noticed your posts today and wanted to send you a note.
> > >>I appreciate your position and that you have a viewpoint not shared by
> > >>many
> > >>other posters. That is acceptable and I encourage you to debate with
> > >>people,
> > >>but please be more professional and respectful of others. It sounds like
> > >>you
> > >>have ideas on how to do things better, but attacking someone is not the
> > >>way
> > >>to get noticed.
> > > When somebody publishes rubbish, one has to accept to stand publicly
> > > be challenged...
> > > I pointed out fallacies and justified them with examples and sound
> > > proofs. Not convinced? Produce one thread where the main purpose of my
> > > critisism was not the argument itself...
> > > OTOH, how did you react when some people called me **hole, mean .
> > > Isn't that a direct personal attack?
> > >>Comments like "somebody who has no clue" and "IGNORE THE WRITER'S
> > >>ARTICLE."
> > >>are insulting and not relevant. You can disagree and point out
> > >>inaccuracies
> > >>without being an ass. Your tone is that of scolding and condescension.
> > Condescending? A scold? /You?/ Nooooo! ;-)
> > Cimode, the first rule of getting your point across to someone or
> > correcting
> > their error /is to make them like you!/
> > Just a suggestion ....
> At some point one must call a spade a spade...(I realize I begin to
> sound like Bob Badour eeirk)...
> Was banned after the editor Steve Jones declared that I have never
> responded to him. He simply and blankly lied. If I am not mistaken F
> PASCAL had once posted an article on dbdebunk called *On what they
> hide....* (not sure). It has different meaning now...
> To the extent that Bob Badour has the excuse of being exasperated one too
> many times by the repetitive, clueless posts to this group, I sympathize
> with him rather than you.
This group is not the only place where truth must be defended. When you hear something such as *systematic treatment of missing data* = *Codd OKed use of NULLS* how would *you* react. When you hear that handling NULLS's destructive impact should be done applicatively instead of simply not using them at all, you get irritated. When after providing code to show NULL absurdity and showing it is possible to totally get rid of NULLS at design time and demonstrating the absurdity of claims made people just stick to their silly beliefs, insult you then censor you, how would you react...If you sympathize with people like that then I am sorry for you....
> But beyond that, Cimode, you /just don't get it/, do you?
> Bruce (The "other" BB)
Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 15:54:06 CET