Bruce C. Baker wrote:
> "Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:4658dd25$0$4028$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
>
>>Bruce C. Baker wrote:
>>
>>>"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:4658bf81$0$4043$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Matthias Klaey wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Matthias Klaey wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Cimode <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Chapter 2 of the little things that can be done at little cost to
>>>>>>>>avoid misconceptions about RM design.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Lately, I opened a thread that gave opportunity for CELKO to post the
>>>>>>>>exact essence of what should *not* be done in design: let
>>>>>>>>subjectiveness regulate design instead of logic. I take the
>>>>>>>>opportunity of his thread to point out how and why it is wiser to
>>>>>>>>ignore such ideas to build better databases. For that I will take
>>>>>>>>all
>>>>>>>>the posted comments and try to make sense out of them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Regard...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hmm. Is this just the usual Celko-bashing in this newsgroup? Did you
>>>>>>>intend to write a parody on how to misread and misinterpert other
>>>>>>>peoples texts? You don't mean this seriously, do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Celko is an idiot who need debunking everywhere. You seem to object to
>>>>>>debunking idiots.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Celko is an idiot who need debunking everywhere": This is *your
>>>>>opinion* about Celko. I happen to disagree with you (end of *this*
>>>>>discussion from my part).
>>>>
>>>>That Celko is an idiot is a factual matter and not opinion at all.
>>>
>>>For those of us who are coming a little late to the "Celko is an idiot"
>>>thread, could you give a few details about the dimensions of his idiocy?
>>>TIA.
>>
>>groups.google.com
>
> I was kinda looking for specifics, Bob; in particular, why /you/ consider
> Celko to be an idiot.
>
> At this point, I'm only curious. I'm certainly not defending the man--as if
> he needed defending by the likes of me! I'd hate to see this evolve into
> what we in another NG refer to as a "Provide Proof Or Retract" challenge.
You can find more specifics than you will ever figure out how to deal
with at groups.google.com
Received on Sun May 27 2007 - 09:04:31 CDT
