Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

On 12 juin, 09:46, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> > >agreeableness?
>
> > 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

Trying to overanalyze this is meaningless......Jay is just mad at BB way of doing things.

 You just get caught in the exchange...(as I did) hi hi hi Received on Fri Jun 12 2009 - 10:21:59 CEST