Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

From: paul c <>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 04:32:15 GMT
Message-ID: <jJi%l.32895$PH1.25187_at_edtnps82>

Keith H Duggar wrote:
> On Jun 10, 2:34 pm, wrote:

>> On Jun 10, 9:55 am, Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
>>>      Fabian Pascal gave up on Database Debunking after several years.
>>> It was grinding water.
>>>     The same old stupidities keep coming again and again.  It is not
>>> surprising that people get tired of explaining the same thing over and
>>> over.
>> Then please stop martyring yourselves to the cause, Besides, it's not
>> as though you have anything original to say anyway. 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.

> I know I haven't really participated in the group for a time but
> I'm insulted that you did not explicitly include me in that list.
> Even a moron like you should know that I and I alone am Fraud 6!
> Now ... where did I put those jackboots.
You can tell a moron he's a moron but he'll never know it, otherwise he could start to escape that condition, which I haven't ever seen happen here. They can also be brainwashed, as we see many here have been, but that requires loud volume which morons can occasionally react well to and probably other kinds of orchestration and is a waste of energy for the few who have something to contribute to the field or the barely more numerous few more who just want to make an honest effort to understand, having done their reading before their asking . One common denominator of the people who bring up manners here (I can count the exceptions on one hand) is that they complain about the big four rdb popularizers' being mentioned so much here when they obviously have failed to read and understand what has been written. They routinely fail to offer readable material from anybody else. When they quote, they usually confuse quoting with comprehending and show themselves to be fakes who don't know they are fakes. They are so witless that they don't even know when they are changing the subject to irrelevencies. They continue, louder and louder on the same chant, not even knowing they have changed the subject. As Gene says, it is always the same old stupidities. It is very rare that they ever fasten on one of the true loopholes in the RT theory of those big names, although sometimes they trip over one and don't even know they did. (Most posters here seem to think RT development was finished years ago.) They are examples of a deficiency that is beyond their understanding, they believe they have been trained because somebody or some so-called institution told them they were trained, not because they know it or they know they have struggled to understand how it is that they imagine they they indeed understand or because they've used a product built by people who didn't understand or they think they know because to them a language is somehow a db theory, when RT doesn't depend on language. As I've said before maybe one reader in a hundred here has read Appendix A. I believe it could be taught to seventh-graders, provided they had no programming or industry experience to slow them down. There might be other foundations that are just as good, precise, concise as Appendix A but it's the genisis for me until somebody shows me a better one.

There is only a handful of people here who can talk about basic implications of RT and make themselves understood, let alone coherently, in fact there is only a handful who talk about those impllications at all. The rest can take consolation that they number among a vast incompetent western world majority, no matter what field you might pick.   Of course everybody is a moron in some fields but the ones here can't admit it. The widespread public trend to slow down the competents with the incompetents is pointless. Nothing wrong with cliques in and of themselves. Received on Sun Jun 21 2009 - 06:32:15 CEST

Original text of this message