Re: Object-oriented thinking in SQL context?

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:dsi_l.31244$Db2.30382_at_edtnps83...
> Bob Badour wrote:
> ...
>> It's actually censorship that protects the collegial environment primary
>> researchers retreated to: peer review and university hiring procedures.
>> That censorship keeps the self-aggrandizing ignorants, cranks, trolls,
>> and snake-oil salemen at bay.
>
> Yes, but the 'collegial environment' became a complacent sanctuary after
> the 1960's trend in the Western world to make university a basic
> requirement for everyone. This causes false feelings of enntitlement and
> laziness, whereas before the post-war era, such an education was much more
> a much more strenuous privilege and graduates felt an unselfish
> responsibility which is lost today. You can see the effects in modern
> Switzerland where their trade system that once produced such good
> workmanship is now organized by graduates who would never have been
> admitted to a college fifty years ago. The need to employ these graduates
> has produced elaborate bureaucracies. Compare to the British Admiralty of
> WWI, whether or not they still ruled the seas is a matter of debate, but I
> was told they did it with only 500 people in head office. The guy who
> told me this claimed that the reason the Admiralty is so big today has a
> lot to do with computers that make it possible to be bigger. One big
> irony in this has to do with massive angst about the western economies
> that have lost their body of skilled trade workers and are managed by
> people who routinely demonstrate a complete failure to abstract (which we
> see in most of the c.d.t. posts, pretty much everyday)./

It's one thing to isolate the properties or behaviors that different things have in common; it's quite another to deny that they are indeed different things, or even that they are things. Your incessant charges of mysticism and a failure to abstract do not bear close scrutiny. Are you so bereft of reason that you think that repeating something over and over will somehow make it true? I expect not, which leaves the only alternative explanation. While I have come to expect that tactic from politicians (mainly liberals), who are all just lying weasels anyway (but not just the liberals), it speaks volumes that you would lower yourself to their level. Unfortunately, the audience of politicians are those gullible enough to believe them, and they're counting on the fact that there are a great many who are, but I don't think many here on c.d.t. are that gullable. Received on Thu Jun 18 2009 - 16:48:10 CEST