Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

"Gene Wirchenko" <genew_at_ocis.net> wrote in message news:2epv25hphjuk2mtab6chl93hb82bsrlbes_at_4ax.com...
> 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.
>

I need to look into setting up my own killfile. You'll be first on the list! Ahead of Bob.

>
> 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.
Received on Wed Jun 10 2009 - 21:43:32 CEST