Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 00:46:03 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 10, 11:34 am, jaygarri..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 10, 9:55 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> >If you had to pick one, which would you pick words of wisdom or
> That's a false and self-serving dichotomy.
He presented it as a hypothetical, not a dichotomy. Since it's not a dichotomy, it can't be a false dichotomy.
But since you note that it "serves" Gene, I guess that means you recognize the value of content over pleasantry. This recognition is what caused me finally to stop whining to Bob about his manners. He and I waged a long and severe battle of attrition over that very issue. Ultimately, however, I was won over by the strength of his arguments.
> While you're at
> it, please drop the pretext that this group is anything other than a
> circle-jerk for you, Badour, Marshall, cimode, et al., and an insular
> platform for omphaloskepsis and unwarranted egotism.
Omphaloskepsis is an awesome word; I commend your entirely correct use of it, even though I disagree completely with what you are saying. Seeing it and my name in the same sentence was a surprise. Being mentioned at all here these days is a surprise, since I rarely post, and my apparent perceived status as a Circle Jerker of first repute is an honor I probably do not deserve, if only for lack of recent posting volume.
> Please, all of you, put your flaccid penises away and dispense with
> the Don Quixote/Sisyphus affectations.
Hmm. Well, you stepped away from the classical Greek motif to bring in Don Quixote; I would call that a stylistic mistake. This last sentence is a muddle; if you are going to bring in penises, the better approach would be to go with the lately-popular "swordfight"; this is consistent with your generally hellenic diction. Sisyphus's name is often presented in adjectival form; that would have worked better too. Referencing impotence is potentially quite a strong rhetorical device, if perhaps overused, however it's not a good fit with the overall theme of excessive conflict. I'd have skipped the "flaccid" part.
However, there is another difficulty, altogether different in kind from these I have mentioned so far.
The thing you're arguing against is incivility. And yet your own post is entirely uncivil. Apparently your argument is that politeness is for other people. Alas, hypocrisy is never the basis for a compelling argument.
Now, of these two problem areas, of diction and of self-consistency, whichever is to be considered the more pressing will depend on whether one is attending more to style or substance. If you had to pick one, which would you pick: words of wisdom or agreeableness?
Marshall Received on Fri Jun 12 2009 - 09:46:03 CEST