Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)

On May 28, 4:12 pm, "David Cressey" <cresse..._at_verizon.net> wrote:
> "Eric" <e..._at_deptj.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:81qj53tc69edvm9t97ovo0bgnj5h0m4chp_at_4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On 27 May 2007 08:42:16 -0700, -CELKO- <jcelko..._at_earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > >>> That Celko is an idiot is a factual matter and not opinion at all. <<
>
> > >As long as you are being soooo factual and would never ever ever
> > >engage in slander, let's get a definition, an instrument, and a
> > >measurement for this fact, so we can verify it in the real world
> > >(Reber, A.S. (1995). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd ed.
> > >Toronto: Penguin Books.)
>
> > >IQ Range Classification
> > >==============================
> > >70-80 Borderline deficiency
> > >50-69 Moron
> > >20-49 Imbecile
> > > < 20 Idiot
>
> > >Now I look in my wallet and find a current Mensa Membership card!
> > >Validation from an external, trusted source! Known and accepted
> > >instruments and measurements.
>
> > >In fact, if you had bothered to research me, you would have found that
> > >I have been the Atlanta Chapter President in 1974 and that I test no
> > >lower than the top 1% of the population on three different
> > >instruments.
>
> > >Now, would you mind presenting your trusted external source for your
> > >statement? The instrument? The measurement? :)
>
> > A perfect example, I think, of argument by misdirection - attack a
> > word usage that everyone understands (whether they agree or not) by
> > referring to the technicalities of a specialised usage. Then use it as
> > a springboard for a bit of irrelevant boasting.
>
> I disagree.
>
> Bob Badour uses the word "idiot" to convey something that is materially
> different from what common usage and even technical usage would accept as a
> conventional meaning. In the context of this topic, the word "idiot" as
> applied to Joe Celko appears to be intended to cover someone whose opinions
> and arguments can be safely disregarded without exploring their possible
> validity.
>
> When Joe Celko makes a claim in this forum, sometimes I agree, and
> sometimes I disagree. But I've never had reason to classify Joe as an
> "idiot". And there a probably plenty of participants in the forum who might
> dismiss Joe as a lightweight theoretician, but who would completely
> disagree with the categorization of "idiot".
>
> When Joe appeals to a formal definition of "idiot", and presents his Mensa
> membership as proof, I think that only an obtuse person would fail to get
> the humorous component of that argument.
>
> Me, I don't believe one has to think someone an idiot in order to challenge
> him. And I don't believe that Joe's comments in this forum have undemrined
> his credibility to the point where one shouldn't respond to him. In short,
> I think Bob Badour speaks for himself, and perhaps a few others. That's
> all.

Do you think discussing *idiocy* truly has any interest to database theory? Received on Mon May 28 2007 - 16:23:19 CEST