Re: What is a database?

> On Thursday, 27 February 2014 15:15:10 UTC+11, James K. Lowden wrote:

Last year, your proved to be one who engages in argument, but lacks the honestly to close any point, therefore preventing resolution of any kind. And one who is so fragmented that any discussion is cannot be had. I will not be engaging with you this year, particularly when you post in the same manner. If anyone wants to genuinely understand another, they have to be open, you are a clam.

It doesn't matter what you *TELL* us you are, what you are is already proved in your posts and emails.

> > On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 17:44:55 -0800 (PST)
> Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I do not believe in the concept of private definitions.
>
> You may not realize it, but you demonstrate great affinity for private
> definitions: the ones that exist between your ears and never escape.

Ok, so you are not only obsessing about me, you are obsessing about my thoughts. Being an authority does have its burdens.

> The question
>
> what you mean by "ordered"
>
> is not answered by
>
> normal human logic

1. There you go, as usual, LYING.

I did not answer the question with that.

b. There you go, as usual, FRAGMENTING.

Breaking a structure into tiny fragments; then isolating your fragments, such that there are meaningless; and then wailing that your isolated fragments are meaningless to you. Priceless.

I did not answer the question with that isolated meaningless fragment. The fragments are yours, and yours alone. I agree, yes, your fragment is meaningless; it doesn't understand the question.

If you want to take a stab at being an honest, undamaged human being, read the complete post; try to understand it (as opposed to arguing with every piece of it); ask questions about anything you do not understand. Of course, breaking structures up into fragments will prevent that, so you will have to find another way to service your addiction. Do not break up any post of mine, keep reading the entire post as one single atomic article, until you understand it.

You may never understand it, but that's ok, that's a separate point. There is a mountain of evidence that you have flooded the internet with, proving that you do not understand databases.

> The question
>
> what *you* think the Null Problem is
>
> is not answered by
>
> Feel free to supply an authoritative definition

So you don't have a definition either.

But you are going to argue with me anyway.

Priceless.

--

Listen, you self-declared theoretical expert.  Whether it is an answer or not is not the point.  The point is, I have killed the argument about it, so that we (ok, not you) can progress with the rest of the discussion, without getting bogged down at the definition stage.  That is normal human operation.  But not you, you can't stand that, you're evidently addicted to the minor arguments, at every stage, and incapable of reaching any goal in a joint human endeavour.

It is a common characteristic of insane people, to obsess about little things, and thus entirely neglect the big things in life.



> Those answers are dodges; they prevent intelligent discussion by


> forestalling definition of the terms.  


Really ?  You are still defining that ?  Haven't you heard, that was defined decades ago.  By authorities, with more brains than you or I.  I have enough brains not to define, from scratch, what is already defined.  Evidently you don't, you are still scratching.

Google for "reinventing the wheel".  People who are completely isolated from the rest of humanity are forever doing that.  Yes.  Both.  Googling.  And reinventing the wheel.



> I expect you will now call me names for pointing that out.  



Pointing what out ? 

You have not pointed out anything.  Nor have you contributed to the thread.  All you have done is attack something that you evidently can't understand, and provide further, consistent, evidence of 
a.  your disgusting dishonesty
b.  your  method of "thinking" (you already know what humans call that).



> I have a


> fancy term for that, too: an ad hominem attack.  


Ok, (c) evidently, you are a man of fancy words as well.

I couldn't care less, whether my posts or answers are satisfactory, or not, to people who are evidently [by the evidence provided in your posts] operating at less than full human capacity.  I am here for the undamaged.

If I don't answer your posts in future, it means, just keep reading this post as the response to each of your posts.  I will pray for you.

Guffaws
Derek