Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: "erk" Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.databases.theory Subject: Re: The wisdom of the object mentors (Was: Searching OO Associations with RDBMS Persistence Models) Date: 6 Jun 2006 11:44:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 62 Message-ID: <1149619493.127653.276860@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> References: <1148940908.338233.159400@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <_tjhg.18430$A26.424258@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: 170.201.180.136 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Trace: posting.google.com 1149619499 8241 127.0.0.1 (6 Jun 2006 18:44:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2006 18:44:59 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=170.201.180.136; posting-account=D5on_Q0AAACQwqv81pYDfkXI2sLkx8Xr Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.object:140154 comp.databases.theory:41102 Andrew McDonagh wrote: > Snipped yet more insult laden waffle. > > Bob, > > Can you not simply argue your point without resorting to insults? > [...] > However, just because its different does not mean its wrong. Nor does it mean it's right; that's why the non-insulting portion of the text is more important. While I don't agree with Bob's approach to these conversations, I find the substance of his arguments compelling. Maybe I just lack civility, but whatever your conclusions, Bob's use of "idiot", "predator", "stupidity", etc. are backed up, usually in the same paragraph, by examples. > It certainly does not mean we need to respond with insults to argue our > point. Robert Martin's prose is less overtly insulting, but contains ample patronizing and implications of stupidity. Examples: >>Nahhh. The DBMS must store the data, manage the queries, and enforce >>some integrity rules. Business rules are in the domain of the >>application. We don't want the business rules being done by the >>database. Dismissive, dogmatic, and unsubstantiated, all in one fell swoop! >>No, a DBMS is a bucket of bits with some low level rules to manage >>those bits. Dogmatic and uninformed. >>The people who sell databases have sold you, and the industry, a >>misconception: that the database is the heart of the system. This is >>flawed. REALLY patronizing. Implies gullibility on the part of - well, everyone but Bob, and declares this snake oil (not the subject of discussion, but a straw man) flawed, based evidently on his authority. Yes, Robert's writing is less overtly insulting, but at least Bob B's insults are direct and easy to identify, not masquerading as an argument. Personally, I'd prefer the insults. > Its like Buddists saying Christians (or other faith) are stupid because > they hold different ideas of what is right. So you're saying that arguments about computation, logic, application tiers, languages, predicates, etc. are of the same ilk as those of faith? Now THAT'S dismissive. Faith is different in countless ways from any of these discussions. > Argue your points by all means - but insults are not needed to sway > people one way or the other. You're probably right. Maybe Bob enjoys it. Maybe he's even mean-spirited. That has little bearing on what he writes. - Eric