Re: foundations of relational theory?

"Bob Badour" <bbadour_at_golden.net> wrote in message news:cd3b3cf.0310271759.1d4f1a39_at_posting.google.com...

> Unfortunately, I understood all too well. Logical integrity is only an
> implementation issue in a shitty product like Pick.

You appear to be suggesting that not only must a product support a specific feature set to garner your approval but it must also do it in the only manner that you approve of? If an "implementation issue" provides the end result that you seek then surely the existence of such an option should be welcomed with open arms rather than pooh-poohed as not being to one's own exacting personal standards? You put me in mind of an English minister, who determined to prove to the mobile vulgaris that he retained the common touch, boarded a London Bus and exclaimed "35 Acacia Avenue please my good man". To decry the bus for it's failure to be a taxi seems equally as valid as decrying integrity that is implemented rather than inherent.

Your use of pejoratives as adjectives bearing no relation to the product you describe serves only to highlight the paucity of your argument. As a preference I favour inbuilt safety mechanisms/restraints that I can override - call it perhaps a reflection of the human condition. Thus I prefer car safety belts I can take off if necessary, traffic signals I can ignore without physical damage if they malfunction and databases that implement constraints which allow for overrides where the data owner deems it appropriate. This way the database becomes my servant rather than vice versa.

Naturally in a representative democracy you are welcome to see it otherwise. Received on Tue Oct 28 2003 - 09:42:28 CET