Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:28:56 -0400
Message-ID: <sAq%l.285$j84.273_at_nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>
"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message
news:jJi%l.32895$PH1.25187_at_edtnps82...
> Keith H Duggar wrote:
>> On Jun 10, 2:34 pm, jaygarri..._at_gmail.com wrote: >>> On Jun 10, 9:55 am, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> 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. >> >> KHD >
> 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.
Appendix A is interesting, to be sure, but hardly deserving of the reverence you accord it. I have some concerns about the definitions--particularly with the exists quantifier. It is not clear whether the domain of quantification is fixed or variable, which bears on whether <NOT> returns an absolute or relative complement.
> 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 - 15:28:56 CEST