Re: Examples of SQL anomalies?
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 13:19:41 -0400
"Rob" <rmpsfdbs_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Jun 30, 4:29 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
>> > "Rob" <rmpsf..._at_gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:57cfcee6-ef66-41b5-8b0a-
>> Perhaps you should write more clearly. The paragraphs you mention fall
>> under the heading, "Integration by Structure" in the section following
>> aforementioned queries and therefore appear to have nothing to do with
>> I think that in addition to more practical database courses (or a
>> more practical experience, hopefully under a capable mentor), you may
>> to take a course in technical writing. And by the way, if you already
>> a degree, you should probably ask for your money back.
> Wikipedia "ad hominem argument":
> "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin:
> "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of
> replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to
> a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim,
> rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing
> evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the
> claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to
> change the subject."
> You've raised not a single technical issue of merit.
Perhaps not in the response to your "you should read it before you criticize" post.
> Instead, you've
> attacked my education, my experience, my mentors and the universities
> that granted my degrees.
You provided the link to the web site and acknowledged that it is your work. If you don't care to be judged by what you post, then don't post. Sometimes it's better to remain silent and let people think your an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
> I apologize if my technical writing is not
> clear -- I am not trained in that area and I'm doing the best I can.
If you expect to be taken seriously, then you had better learn to communicate effectively.
> When/if you are ready to address new, substantive technical issues, I
> will respectfully and thoughtfully reply.
You haven't coherently addressed my initial objection to your aggregate-link mechanism, which is that I just can't see any practical use for reifying descriptions of relationships. Received on Tue Jul 01 2008 - 19:19:41 CEST