Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

"Cimode" <cimode_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:51fb6b71-d937-4d40-8dc9-410fdf28c464_at_k2g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> using a consensually recognized language

This phrase reminds me of the glossary project for this newsgroup. This was spearheaded by Masterdam. I don't know what has become of the glossary lately.

I thought of the glossary as very useful. I know that I often phrase my ideas in an unfortunate way simply because I'm ignorant of the language that's been accepted as recognized.
Often, but not always, my failure to express ideas uusing consensually recognized language is accompanied by my failure to think my ideas through carefully enough before posting. What's true for me is likely to be true for many regulars and nearly all newcomers. An awareness of the "standard glossary" and its appropriate use can improve the quality of discourse in the forum.

At the same time, consensus regarding language should not be used as a means of stifling unorthodox opinion. Nearly all good ideas begin as unorthodox opinions. And while most new ideas do not eventually make the grade of being accepted as good ideas, stifling bad ideas is hardly the way to promote good discourse. In the realm of theory, the boundary lines between facts, ideas, and opinons are not always clear.

I think it's possible for each one of us to do better in the area of avoiding insults to other participants, even when we find it necessary to submit antoher person's posts to very demanding crticism. I think that's a worthwhile endeavor. Received on Sat Jun 13 2009 - 13:21:26 CEST