Re: Is it Possible to Enforce This Relationship at the DB Level?

[Snipped]
> > > > Ok let me get this straight...you are basically saying to people here
> > > > that you want to design a system which purpose would be building a
> > > > data store where propositions would be presentation elements and then
> > > > your pretend that it has nothing to do with a confusion between
> > > > presentation and data layer.
> >
> > > > Is it me or is this a joke.
> >
> > > You're a joke.
> >
> > Looking at the epidermic way you react to something so obvious makes a
> > clear cut case of your ignorance and confusion. Both TroyK and I have
> > tried to point out an obvious confusion but you keep arguing for some
> > obscure reasons meaningful only to you. Case closed.
>
> No, your confused. Your lame dismissive quip about presentation *not*
> determining design
> is irrelevant to my initial post, and serves only to stroke your
> socially distraught and/or inept personality.
So now I am the one *confused*. After several people here pointed out to you that you were confused. As for my personality, I havce been called worse...

> Spreadsheets are presentation "concepts", sure I agree. But in my
> situation, they are being used as nonuniform data sources and cannot
> be dismissed.
Speaking of changing your mind...
So now you agree that spreadsheet are indeed presentation concepts after you maintained the opposite on the previous sentence (quote: who's speaking about presentation)...As I said you lack the intellectual honnesty to recognize your errors.

> > > Why don't you quit deferring to the notion of spreadsheets being a
> > > presentation element and look at the problem for what it is?
> >
> > I doubt the problem here is truly about design or even spreadsheets.
>
> Well you dolt, initially it was about design, until you chimed in.
It is not a design issue you are facing but an implementation issue moron!!!....Both David Portas and David Cressey have already pointed out that to you but it seems you head is burried into so much crappola that you simply can't make a sense of simple words obvious to everybodyu except you...

> > chosen design is one that has no The problem is that, as any ignorant and lazy git who find himself in
> > position to have to design a db system with no formal education about
> > relational modeling, you simply rely on the some magical hope to find
> > an online cookbook approach that would help you look good with your
> > boss...
>
>
[Snipped gibberish]

My conclusion is based solely on the posts you have made and the ignorance and incoherence you have made and that several people already pointed out to you.

[Snipped gibberish]

> > The truth is you simply have no clue what you are doing
>
> Not true.
That's a fact not a question...

[Snipped Gibberish]

> > > In the scope of my system, what way, other than the fact they are called
> > > "spreadsheets", are they being used as a presentation element?
> >
> > What else could they be?
>
> Humm, maybe a datasource!
What is a *datasource* anyway? I am not sure such word even exists in the dictionnary...

Do you have any clue what presentation is?

You keep using terms you redefine continuously as you choose to ignore their established meaning.

I come to the conclusion as you are simply making up more and more gibberish as you advance instead of recognizing simply that the usual crappola you pour down on people does not *work here*...But what else could be expected from a VI.

[Snipped Gibberish] Received on Wed Oct 24 2007 - 15:50:35 CEST