Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote:

>Brian Selzer wrote:

[snip]

>> 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?

Mr. Selzer:

     I did not pawn it off on Bob. He simply wrote first. I do not claim that Bob's behaviour is adolescent; you do. I claim that it is exasperation with someone seemingly determined to be and remain a fool.

     I killfiled you long ago, and have seen nothing (in the replies to your posts, those I do see) to indicate my decision was erroneous or even hasty.

paul c:

>Bob B knows more (about this subject, maybe not others, such as HVAC)
>than Gene,

     Yes.

>who posts more about practice,

     Yes, because I do not know too much of the theory.

>and I suspect that Gene knows
>it,

     Yes.

>which suggests that he actually knows more than he says,

     Not quite. I try to cultivate an awareness of what I am ignorant of. I tend to avoid speaking about matters that I do not know of, unless I am asking all too many questions.

>and doesn't
>play around about it when he enters theory and good for him.

     Yes. When I am in my home ground in theory, I am even fussier about things than my instructors, way fussier.

>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.

     I try to cultivate an awareness of what I do know, too.

>Everything else is genes.

     I do not follow this sentence.

>Both have more posts
>that I have marked 'important' or 'work' than any other poster here.

     Thank you for the compliment. I try, but without much feedback, it is hard to see what difference I have made.

     I think that Bob deserves the compliment far more than I do. He does much more heavy lifting than I do and gets pilloried far more for his efforts. I simply add a few fillips.

>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 agree on this.

     What is "limited" anyway? It is a code word for "Let's dismiss this".

     Everything is limited. I am 48 years old. English is my first language. I tutor people in English. Nonetheless, I have a limited knowledge of the English language. After all, my knowledge of the English language is not infinite.

     Limited, schimited.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:

     I have preferences.
     You have biases.
     He/She has prejudices.