Re: The Null Problem is a Non-issue

On 2015-01-14, Derek Asirvadem <derek.asirvadem_at_gmail.com> wrote:

... nothing quoted actually, there's too much!

Firstly Humpty Dumpty. That was a literary reference which, as it turned out, you did not recognize. Google them - the egg and paying words extra (other search engines are available). It is about using words to mean something other than or beyond their commonly accepted meaning, and is not in itself an insult. If you consider the suggestion that you have used a word incorrectly an insult you are over-reacting. I merely observed.

In your other recent post that I did not reply to you explained what you meant by "commercial". To continue the reference, you would need to pay that one a lot extra. Yet you have the nerve to accuse others of having subjective private definitions!

Secondly, your arrogance is unbelievable. What gives you the right to assume that someone will treat you as an authority on anything, or approach you as a humble student of a renowned teacher? You post something to a Usenet group, so others will agree, or disagree, or request clarification, elaboration, or (heaven forbid) evidence. Instead you try to place conditions on how any questioner should behave, then go on to discuss your ridiculous assumptions about the state of their minds. Actually, I suspect that you mistake me (and others) for yourself, and I fear I am beyond your comprehension.

Thirdly, you seem to have accidentally provided an answer on the subject of Oracle. I agree that storing a NULL as a zero-length character string was a mistake, but, like all the other mistakes in all the RDBMS products, it is avoidable by careful database design and appropriate specification of how applications should deal with certain data items. It is no more a problem than the other "NULL problem" which you say is a non-issue.

Actually no, it wasn't accidental, it was to give yourself an opportunity to claim to be being charitable. More arrogance!

Fourthly, this is Usenet and there is no such thing as a thread that has nothing to do with me. I am free to respond to anything I read that seems to warrant a response (as is everyone else).

Fifthly, you come up with this:
> ... he was on the SQL Committee that installed The Null Problem in it.
> But for the Commercial RDBMS vendors, he has sabotaged SQL. But hey, he
> declares it to be broken ... carefully avoiding the fact that he broke it.

Was he on the committee at the right time? I haven't yet checked, but if he was, there were a lot of other people pushing their own (or their employers') vested interests. You claim to like facts, and science, let's have some evidence for "he broke it".

No more counting, what you need to do is to pull your head in and stop behaving like the centre of the universe.

BTW, your first two posts of the 14th of January may look deleted in Google groups but I have them and so does everyone else who uses something other than Google Groups for Usenet.

(for anyone who hasn't seen them, they were pretty much the same as the third one anyway)

No thanks, no regards, no cheers, you don't deserve them.

Eric

-- 
ms fnd in a lbry