Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

From: Brian Selzer <>
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:37:01 -0400
Message-ID: <INNXl.31428$>

"paul c" <> wrote in message news:2CFXl.31240$PH1.18952_at_edtnps82...
> Brian Selzer wrote:

>> "Gene Wirchenko" <> wrote in message 
>>> rp_at_raampje.(none) (Reinier Post) wrote:
>>>> Bob Badour wrote:
>>>>>> Some people in this newsgroup believe that the relational model
>>>>>> is sacred, its inventor Codd was a holy man, and a guy called Date
>>>       ^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^^
>>>>>> who has written a bunch of popular books on the subject is his
>>>                                                               ^^^
>>>>>> replacement on earth.
>>>    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>> You are an idiot if that is what you honestly believe.
>>>> That attitude exactly.
>>>     I think that what I have caretted shows more bad attitude.  You
>>> insult people and then complain about their attitude.  I think Bob was
>>> wrong to call you an idiot.  He should have called you a fool.
>> While Bob delights in berating and belittling anyone who doesn't share 
>> his limited interpretation of database theory and in bullying those new 
>> to the field, at least he has the stones to be direct about it.  What I 
>> don't understand is why he doesn't take offense at your presumption.  Why 
>> should it have been Bob that called Reiner a fool?  If you think Reiner 
>> is a fool, then why can't you just say it directly and unequivocally? 
>> Why should you have to pawn it off on Bob?  Is it that such adolescent 
>> behavior is somehow beneath you?  But not beneath Bob?

> Bob B knows more (about this subject, maybe not others, such as HVAC) than
> Gene, who posts more about practice, and I suspect that Gene knows it,
> which suggests that he actually knows more than he says, and doesn't play
> around about it when he enters theory and good for him. From their
> material it is clear that they both have worked to find good grounds for
> their confidence in the opinions they have about the aspects of the
> subject they choose to comment on, as far as they go, which is among the
> finest human traits. Everything else is genes. Both have more posts that
> I have marked 'important' or 'work' than any other poster here. You are
> off on an irrelevant tangent, hand-waving, as usual, but on an different
> tack than usual.. I tbink words like 'limited' reveal an underlying
> resentment towards people who are capable of incisiive abstraction.

I should have expected your response, since you have imposed some of the same arbitrary limits on your own interpretation of database theory. But thank you for clearing up my misconceptions on the pecking order here. I thought Bob was Gene's flunky, not the other way around.

Your usage here is strange. An incisive comment is one that bypasses the social niceties and gets right to the point; an incisive argument is one that is clear, direct, and also gets to the point. Applying 'incisive' to abstraction seems somehow off, at least to me. Maybe it is that abstraction is a process, not an expression. Nevertheless, my use of the word 'limited' has nothing to do with resentment. You appear to be projecting the connotation of 'limited' in 'limited understanding,' in which the limits are inherent, onto my usage of the term in 'limited interpretation,' in which arbitrary limits are self-imposed. Moreover, the resentment I feel toward Bob is due to his numerous attempts to berate, belittle and bully me, and has nothing to do with what he is capable of. I could care less what he is capable of. Received on Wed Jun 10 2009 - 14:37:01 CEST

Original text of this message