Re: Little design mistakes that can be easily avoided (2): Listenning to CELKO (and CELKO alikes)

"Eric" <eric_at_deptj.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:81qj53tc69edvm9t97ovo0bgnj5h0m4chp_at_4ax.com...
> On 27 May 2007 08:42:16 -0700, -CELKO- <jcelko212_at_earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>> That Celko is an idiot is a factual matter and not opinion at all. <<
> >
> >As long as you are being soooo factual and would never ever ever
> >engage in slander, let's get a definition, an instrument, and a
> >measurement for this fact, so we can verify it in the real world
> >(Reber, A.S. (1995). The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology, 2nd ed.
> >Toronto: Penguin Books.)
> >
> >IQ Range Classification
> >==============================
> >70-80 Borderline deficiency
> >50-69 Moron
> >20-49 Imbecile
> > < 20 Idiot
> >
> >Now I look in my wallet and find a current Mensa Membership card!
> >Validation from an external, trusted source! Known and accepted
> >instruments and measurements.
> >
> >In fact, if you had bothered to research me, you would have found that
> >I have been the Atlanta Chapter President in 1974 and that I test no
> >lower than the top 1% of the population on three different
> >instruments.
> >
> >Now, would you mind presenting your trusted external source for your
> >statement? The instrument? The measurement? :)
> >
>
> A perfect example, I think, of argument by misdirection - attack a
> word usage that everyone understands (whether they agree or not) by
> referring to the technicalities of a specialised usage. Then use it as
> a springboard for a bit of irrelevant boasting.

I disagree.

Bob Badour uses the word "idiot" to convey something that is materially different from what common usage and even technical usage would accept as a conventional meaning. In the context of this topic, the word "idiot" as applied to Joe Celko appears to be intended to cover someone whose opinions and arguments can be safely disregarded without exploring their possible validity.

When Joe Celko makes a claim in this forum, sometimes I agree, and sometimes I disagree. But I've never had reason to classify Joe as an "idiot". And there a probably plenty of participants in the forum who might dismiss Joe as a lightweight theoretician, but who would completely disagree with the categorization of "idiot".

When Joe appeals to a formal definition of "idiot", and presents his Mensa membership as proof, I think that only an obtuse person would fail to get the humorous component of that argument.

Me, I don't believe one has to think someone an idiot in order to challenge him. And I don't believe that Joe's comments in this forum have undemrined his credibility to the point where one shouldn't respond to him. In short, I think Bob Badour speaks for himself, and perhaps a few others. That's all. Received on Mon May 28 2007 - 16:12:36 CEST