OT - Best way to handle dbdebunk
dawn
googled me and the first thing that came up was a site that blasted me.
I told her what one of my early-career mentors told me: if no one is
speaking ill of you, you likely are not doing anything. Just because
the other moms didn't have web pages indicating they were stupid was no
reason for her to be concerned.
Well, now Fabian has a new Dawn page (I'm so proud) at
http://www.dbdebunk.com/page/page/2883305.htm I sent him an e-mail and
asked if he could correct one thing which is not to call the one page
DAWN WOLTHUIS' PROOF since I had taken an honest shot at answering
Date's questions in a paper I bought from them. That was my purpose --
it was not intended as a proof of anything. I realize I had tongue in
cheek with a statement about how mathematical relations are ordered so
MV could be seen as more relational than those that insist on no
ordering of the attributes. I made it clear I knew it wasn't
relational according to current definitions, however. I have never
considered PICK to be a relational database even if vendors call it
such. He declined to make any such change, insisting on calling my
responses a proof. It is quite an interesting approach to how to
address your customers.
So, what is my point or question? You can see that the URL above
contains many ad hominem attacks. I don't wish to stoop to that level
of discourse, but I also don't want to be a wimp and let his statements
stand unchallenged.
Should I...
a) Put up a web page pointing to the dbdebunk pages and responding
b) Put up a web page without pointing to these pages, but correcting
misstatements
c) Ignore it (other than this thread in cdt)
d) Stoop to this level of discourse and start throwing insults back
(you can vote for this one, but it just isn't like me)
By the way, thanks to a few of you who have sent me encouraging notes
after seeing that page. I'm pretty tough and able to cope with being
called stupid and ignorant by Pascal. It gave me one restless night
after I read it a week or so ago, but otherwise I sleep just fine. I'm
pleased that my blog has gotten attention. I might have hoped for a
more positive spin on that attention, but ah well.
Cheers! --dawn
Todd
Well, I suppose you could turn the other cheek, or you could vehemently
run into the temple and throw over the money-changer's tables, either
act of which would be useful.
To retaliate or to not, that is a question. I think most observers
understand that an opinion is an opinion no matter the clout of the
person it comes from, but it doesn't always turn out that way at the
"job". Personally, I'd probably go with option c, but that's just my
personality. I suppose it depends on what you have at stake and what's
important to you.
I'd like to see you fight back a little on your web site and here on
cdt, because there are some interesting ideas being tossed around (of
course, you know I don't completely buy into them yet; in fact I think
at one point I was labeled as "one of those purists" :). It's also
spawning some good branching threads.
Todd
-CELKO-
own site along with any clarifications. I simply get attacked ad
homenum, so I cannot put anything on my website in the way of arguement
over an issue. My biggest sin is that I write SQL and not Tutorial D.
I use to ask him to explain Relational Basics to people back in the
Compurserve days instead of attacking them.
Perhaps it is that Chris Date and I had "dueling columns" in two
different magazines years ago (and my Relational Division and Median
code was better than his! Nah, nah, nah, nah!!).
At this point Fabian is seen as a ranting lunatic riding on Chris
Date's coattails.
David Fetter
> At this point Fabian is seen as a ranting lunatic riding on Chris
> Date's coattails.
The same relationship holds between Chris Date and E.F. Codd.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter da...@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Work Harder!
A Few Corporations Get Billions In Welfare From You!
Tony D
David Fetter wrote:
> -CELKO- <jcel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > At this point Fabian is seen as a ranting lunatic riding on Chris
> > Date's coattails.
>
> The same relationship holds between Chris Date and E.F. Codd.
>
I'm sure that anyone who has actually met Chris Date in person would
find it impossible to use the term "ranting lunatic" with respect to
him. Indeed, I think he is sometimes overly polite with some who really
deserve a more pointed response than he usually sees fit to give.
- Tony
Frank Hamersley
> -CELKO- <jcel...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>At this point Fabian is seen as a ranting lunatic riding on Chris
>>Date's coattails.
>
> The same relationship holds between Chris Date and E.F. Codd.
>
I was left wondering, if by extension, the relationship from EFC to FP
is simply additive, worryingly multiplicative or downright scary and
exponential in nature? :-)
</ah>
Cheers, Frank.
Frank Hamersley
Option b) in a low-band way seems to me like the best option now that
you have your blog up and running. Of course you would not be surprised
that IMO you are tilting at windmills on the subject matter side, but
that is your prerogative of course.
BTW having perused the DBD pages I must admit to infrequent readers of
this NG some alignment with FP's expressions on the RM vs MV debate.
Let me say for the record however this commonality extends only as far
as Codd's original concepts and my view on CD/FP/HD subsequent offerings
is somewhat less accommodating!
Cheers, Frank.
mic...@preece.net
dawn wrote:
I'd go for c). He's a bad boy - and he likes being bad. Don't play with
him.
Mike.
Alexandr Savinov
dawn schrieb:
I think option c) would not be a bad decision. And the main argument is
that this issue has nothing to do with data modeling in general and RM
in particular. It is a mix of politics and psychology (or may be even
psychiatry). There is many interesting problems concerning the
phenomenon of DBD=CD/FP/HD but unfortunately not for discussion in this
group. I qualify it as a fight for the legacy of EFC. I seriously doubt
that it is interesting for you (and for anybody else except those guys).
And in this situation you simply have no chances to prove anything
because you have different goals, use different methods and see the
world differently. Let them stay in 20th century.
x
"Frank Hamersley" <terabit...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:ravHf.5838$yK1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
When one can see the direction the world tourned one cannot be polite all
the time.
And he is not an englishman.
x
"Alexandr Savinov" <sp...@conceptoriented.com> wrote in message
news:43f043f5$1...@news.fhg.de...
> I think option c) would not be a bad decision. And the main argument is
> that this issue has nothing to do with data modeling in general and RM
> in particular. It is a mix of politics and psychology (or may be even
> psychiatry). There is many interesting problems concerning the
> phenomenon of DBD=CD/FP/HD but unfortunately not for discussion in this
> group. I qualify it as a fight for the legacy of EFC. I seriously doubt
> that it is interesting for you (and for anybody else except those guys).
> And in this situation you simply have no chances to prove anything
> because you have different goals, use different methods and see the
> world differently. Let them stay in 20th century.
Would you like a return of the Dark Ages ?
Roy Hann
news:1139630829.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> c) Ignore it (other than this thread in cdt)
Since you have already excluded option "e: ignore it altogether, period", I
vote for "c". If you had a killer argument you'd have produced it by now.
I can't think of any reason why you'd want to continue drawing attention to
your treatment at Pascal's hands. I can't think of any reason why, in the
absence of a killer argument, anyone else would want to read about it
either.
Roy
x
dbdebunk.com.
I think you should try to settle your problems with him privately.
Alexandr Savinov
x
We are but there are peoples who hope that there is something they can do
about it.
David Fetter
Were you under the impression that in order to be crazy, a person has
to scream? As far as rudeness goes, it can take many forms. Perhaps
you think that Date's treatment of other theorists is polite, but
you'd pretty much have to define politeness to be that behavior in
order to make it so.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter da...@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
If we cease to judge this world, we may find ourselves, very quickly,
in one which is infinitely worse.
Margaret Atwood
Roy Hann
news:UqWdnTE4i_6SJW3e...@speakeasy.net...
> Were you under the impression that in order to be crazy, a person has
> to scream? As far as rudeness goes, it can take many forms. Perhaps
> you think that Date's treatment of other theorists is polite, but
> you'd pretty much have to define politeness to be that behavior in
> order to make it so.
Politeness is a totally irrelevant dimension in matters of theory. History
is thick with impolite, brusque, and tactless people who were also right (or
at any rate, more nearly right than anyone else). And yes, everyday life is
full of equally rude people who are wrong. It is just irrelevant.
Who apart from Dawn cares if Fabian was or wasn't rude to her? This isn't
comp.databases.soap-opera.
Roy
Vadim Tropashko
> This isn't
> comp.databases.soap-opera.
For the last year it's
comp.databases.dawn.diary
Alfredo Novoa
>comp.databases.soap-opera.
And who apart Fabian cares who is right? :)
Regards
Alfredo
mountain man
news:1139630829.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> c) Ignore it (other than this thread in cdt)
A bunch of spoilt little boys who think that by writing webpages
full of meaningless ad hominem drivel that they are in some manner
peripheral to professional database consultants.
Obviously far too much time on their hands,
and far too little savvy of the world in general.
Probably affiliated to academic circles.
Ignoring it is certainly the best approach. Any other
would be a waste of resources. In fact, it only detracts
from whatever professionalism they hope to publicise.
Too bad.
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au
Bob Badour
Hey Vadim!
I am surprised you haven't blown this popsicle stand yet. Why do you
bother with ignorant morons like Celko or Wolthuis?
Don't you get bored?
Vadim Tropashko
> I am surprised you haven't blown this popsicle stand yet. Why do you
> bother with ignorant morons like Celko or Wolthuis?
Welcome back, Bob! 2 topics popularized by Celko -- Nested Sets, and
Relational Division -- influenced greatly my work.
Eric Junkermann
Vadim Tropashko <vadimtro...@yahoo.com> writes
Indeed. Every time I post something, it disappears behind a very long
answer from Dawn which misses the point. Maybe I wouldn't get any
relevant responses anyway, but at the moment it's impossible to tell.
--
Eric Junkermann
dawn
<snip>
> Indeed. Every time I post something, it disappears behind a very long
> answer from Dawn which misses the point. Maybe I wouldn't get any
> relevant responses anyway, but at the moment it's impossible to tell.
I'll work on shorter responses and will try to remember not to reply to
your posts again, Eric. Enjoy! --dawn
Bob Badour
Suggesting Celko popularized relational division is an affront to the
many fine minds who discussed and debated the topic through the 1970's
and 1980's.
With respect to Nested Sets, the one thing nobody needs--in either
programming or data management--is any clever, arcane, opaque trick to
achieve a simple goal. We need symbolic processors that efficiently and
accurately evaluate intent expressed as simply and transparently as
possible for human minds.
Keep in mind too, your mind finds things transparent that more modest
minds find totally incomprehensible.
Bob Badour
That's a technique the vociferous ignorami master very quickly. I cannot
count how many times Celko dumped 1000 word chunks of complete gibberish
copied and pasted without any regard whatsoever for relevance or
correctness into discussions with his betters.
It's a form of shameless self-promotion and misrepresentation. It would
be harmless if it did not interfere with people earnestly trying to learn.
Dawn is a self-aggrandizing ignorant, and this has been proved many
times by many people. It's a waste to even address her.
As an effective time management technique, I suggest you get a
newsreader with a twit-filter and plonk her into it.
dawn
amount of your postings and emotional energy, it seemed, attacking me
as a person then too.
I wish I understood why you (and Pascal) adopt this "let's run this
person out of town" bully style of approach toward respected published
authors like Celko as well as someone like me who has only been
studying this for a few years and hangs out here in an effort to learn
within a community setting. What does it gain you or why do you feel a
need to harm others?
Happy Valentine's Day, Bob. --dawn
Bob Badour
> Well, Bob, the last time you were here you spent a disproportionate
> amount of your postings and emotional energy, it seemed, attacking me
> as a person then too.
>
> I wish I understood why you (and Pascal) adopt this "let's run this
> person out of town" bully style of approach toward respected published
> authors like Celko
Respected? Don't be such an idiot.
mountain man
news:xVrIf.29996$VV4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Moronic Bob - the PLONK man - strikes again.
Every so often the staff at the mental asylum allow
him internet access. He and Pascal are normally
quite heavily sedated.
--
Pete Brown
IT Managers & Engineers
Falls Creek
Australia
www.mountainman.com.au/software
Bob Badour
> "Bob Badour" <bba...@pei.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:xVrIf.29996$VV4.3...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
>
>>dawn wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Well, Bob, the last time you were here you spent a disproportionate
>>>amount of your postings and emotional energy, it seemed, attacking me
>>>as a person then too.
>>>
>>>I wish I understood why you (and Pascal) adopt this "let's run this
>>>person out of town" bully style of approach toward respected published
>>>authors like Celko
>>
>>Respected? Don't be such an idiot.
>
> Moronic Bob - the PLONK man - strikes again.
> Every so often the staff at the mental asylum allow
> him internet access. He and Pascal are normally
> quite heavily sedated.
Hi MountainMan,
I guess I should not be too surprised to see yet another
self-aggrandizing ignorant weigh in.
mountain man
We can do this the easy way or the hard way Bob.
It's all about being polite and neighbourly. Ignorance
is a separate issue, the antithesis of which you cannot
claim as native to your self, while you continue to make
adhominem contributions to any news group at all.
Perhaps nothing in this world surprises you any more, and
if this is the case, your missing out on life itself.
In any event, have a great day and pick on some other
poor unsuspecting soul to vent your spleen if that is what
turns you on. Your a sick man.
My suggestion is that you and the Debunke crew get a
bulk rate holiday to a peaceful locale by the beach and
sunshine. Plenty of good surf and laughter, perhaps a
few good walks down long sandy beaches under the
full moon. Treck out the back into the hills, creeks
and waterfalls. You guys need a break from yourselves.
RULE NUMBER SIX:
Dont take yourself seriously.
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au
Marshall Spight
> Vadim Tropashko wrote:
>
> Keep in mind too, your mind finds things transparent that more modest
> minds find totally incomprehensible.
Bob,
Please remember that this is a theory newsgroup. As such, expressing
personal opinions of people's character, such as your above observation
of how smart Vadim is, is actually offtopic. I say this even though
I completely agree with you about his intelligence. (Actually there
may also be a couple of other threads in which you have commented
on people's characters.)
In short, I want to encourage you to discuss the ideas, not the people.
Thanks,
Marshall
mAsterdam
[snip]
> In short, I want to encourage you to discuss the ideas, not the people.
Last week (feb 8) garhone posted a 'request for posting guidelines':
> Can someone direct me to the posting guidelines for
> this newsgroup, if any?
Nobody answered. I am not aware of any c.d.t. specific guidelines.
'Discuss ideas, not people.'
seems like a nice one - though not just for c.d.t.
Roy Hann
news:43f2d21b$0$11075$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> Nobody answered. I am not aware of any c.d.t. specific guidelines.
>
> 'Discuss ideas, not people.'
>
Can we add, "Discuss ideas, not yourself" too? Please?
Roy
Alfredo Novoa
>personal opinions of people's character, such as your above observation
>of how smart Vadim is, is actually offtopic.
I disagree. Most of the current trafic in this group is due to the
inability of some people to understand what is very simple for other
people.
>In short, I want to encourage you to discuss the ideas, not the people.
There are many ideas here that don't deserve to be discussed.
Twit filters are a good tool, but nonsense flood is harmful for the
group anyway because most knowledgeable casual readers are probably
running away horrorized and new morons are attracted.
This group decayed a lot when Bob leaved it.
Regards
Alfredo
Alfredo Novoa
>I am surprised you haven't blown this popsicle stand yet.
Probably because there are not many alternatives.
> Why do you
>bother with ignorant morons like Celko or Wolthuis?
There are classes everywhere. I am very far from being a Celko's fan,
but I would change one Wolthuis by ten Celkos :-)
Regards
Alfredo
Bob Badour
> There are classes everywhere. I am very far from being a Celko's fan,
> but I would change one Wolthuis by ten Celkos :-)
Hi Alfredo,
You are exchanging liras and pennies. And bad pennies at that.
Bob Badour
Hi Marshall,
Your suggestion would have more merit if the group actually discussed
any real theory. When I returned here, I saw self-promoting ignorants
engaged in public acts of mental masturbation (as always), and one or
two people trying to make the best of a bad situation.
When well over 90% of the content of the group is nonsense posted by
self-promoting ignorants who are unable to respond to substantive
critique, it seems disingenuous to suggest one may not point that out.
Given the extremely low signal to noise ratio, it seems doubly
disingenuous to suggest one may not point others toward the signal.
mAsterdam
> mAsterdam wrote:
>>Marshall Spight wrote:
[snip]
>>> In short, I want to encourage you to discuss the
>>> ideas, not the people.
>>
>> Last week (feb 8) garhone posted a 'request for posting guidelines':
>>
>>> Can someone direct me to the posting guidelines for
>>> this newsgroup, if any?
>>
>>
>> 'Discuss ideas, not people.'
>>
>>seems like a nice one [snip]
>
> Can we add, "Discuss ideas, not yourself" too? Please?
Sometimes I use anecdotes from my personal
experience to illustrate a point. I hope this
rule is not meant to exclude these.
The goal of 'Discuss ideas, not people.' IMO is
to improve the general signal to noise ratio.
Another suggestion: 'Take some time to make your post a nice read'.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wijnands/nnq/nquote.html
OTOH neither of these are c.d.t. specific at all.
Marshall Spight
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
> Your suggestion would have more merit if the group actually discussed
> any real theory.
Sometimes real theory is discussed and sometimes it isn't. We had
a rockin' good thread a while back on a paper Vadim wrote called
"Relational Algebra as Distributive Lattice." I am still digesting
the implications. Not every experience can be a peak one.
Not everyone can be a Jan Hidders or a Vadim Tropashko.
Michael Jordon by himself does not a basketball team make.
> When I returned here, I saw self-promoting ignorants
> engaged in public acts of mental masturbation (as always), and one or
> two people trying to make the best of a bad situation.
I encourage you to join the latter group! (Not that I consider the
situation particularly bad. Is it much better in any other context,
do you think?)
> When well over 90% of the content of the group is nonsense posted by
> self-promoting ignorants who are unable to respond to substantive
> critique, it seems disingenuous to suggest one may not point that out.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to point out when you think some
idea or another is nonsense. Critiquing someone's character is
unnecessary if you actually refute their arguments.
> Given the extremely low signal to noise ratio, it seems doubly
> disingenuous to suggest one may not point others toward the signal.
I encourage you to point others towards the signal. You'll be
more effective in doing so if you do it in a way that is within
the bounds of polite discourse. Consider how marginalized
Fabian Pascal is; without his very-low-traffic website, no one
would have heard of him at all. This has nothing to do with
his ideas and everything to do with his appalling rudeness.
Marshall
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>>Your suggestion would have more merit if the group actually discussed
>>any real theory.
>
>
> Sometimes real theory is discussed and sometimes it isn't. We had
> a rockin' good thread a while back on a paper Vadim wrote called
> "Relational Algebra as Distributive Lattice." I am still digesting
> the implications. Not every experience can be a peak one.
I will have to google up the thread and check it out.
>>When well over 90% of the content of the group is nonsense posted by
>>self-promoting ignorants who are unable to respond to substantive
>>critique, it seems disingenuous to suggest one may not point that out.
>
> I think it is perfectly acceptable to point out when you think some
> idea or another is nonsense. Critiquing someone's character is
> unnecessary if you actually refute their arguments.
Here's the problem with your point: The self-promoting ignorants repeat
the same gibberish even after one refutes it with substantive argument.
That's what started this whole thread in the first place.
Once one demonstrates that the ignorants lack either the ability or the
desire to learn anything substantive, one sees little point in
addressing their arguments. They are self-promoting ignorants who want
to harm others for their own benefit.
They are no different from snake-oil salesmen. Don't you think we have a
duty to alert others to a 'product' that lacks effect and is harmful?
>>Given the extremely low signal to noise ratio, it seems doubly
>>disingenuous to suggest one may not point others toward the signal.
>
> I encourage you to point others towards the signal.
No, you didn't. I let people know that Vadim's mind is exceptional, and
you chastised me for it. A lot of what little signal exists in this
newsgroup comes from Vadim and Jan.
paul c
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>>Your suggestion would have more merit if the group actually discussed
>>any real theory.
>
>
> Sometimes real theory is discussed and sometimes it isn't. We had
> a rockin' good thread a while back on a paper Vadim wrote called
> "Relational Algebra as Distributive Lattice." I am still digesting
> the implications. Not every experience can be a peak one.
Me too. I wish that thread were still active, even though I had very
little to contribute. It was the generalized union that caught my eye.
Although I gather that in itself isn't new (I've been told that BS12
had it), the paper seemed very creative in applying it.
When the thread stopped, I was still trying to dig how projection is
embodied in the generalized union, how "->" embodied RENAME, what
generalized union means to de Morgan law and the tantalizing part about
transitive closure. Admittedly when I read the paper, I couldn't help
comparing it to TTM chapter 4, (except for the lattice part which was
even more over my head).
Maybe I'll try again,
p
Christopher Browne
>>>Given the extremely low signal to noise ratio, it seems doubly
>>>disingenuous to suggest one may not point others toward the signal.
>> I encourage you to point others towards the signal.
>
> No, you didn't. I let people know that Vadim's mind is exceptional,
> and you chastised me for it. A lot of what little signal exists in
> this newsgroup comes from Vadim and Jan.
Look, most of what you generate amounts to "noise." Sometimes it's
noise that tells people why they're off base, but often it's not.
If you contributed to the "signal" part by generating some positive
signal, that is, some positive claims about what theory there is and
perhaps that there should be, that would actually improve the S:N
ratio. As it stands, you're not doing that...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "gmail.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/wp.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #80. "If my weakest troops fail to
eliminate a hero, I will send out my best troops instead of wasting
time with progressively stronger ones as he gets closer and closer to
my fortress." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
paul c
To the extent that I'm not (at least not always) one of the ignorants, I
must agree. It must be a drag for the experts to have to endlessly
point out the non-sequiturs and refute all the contradictory language
that emanates from predicatable sources but I think if you are expert,
you have a duty to do that on society's behalf.
Personally, I can accept insults/ad hominems if I truly believe the
respondent is head-and-shoulders more competent than I am in the subject
at hand. I think when one goes public in anything, one must expect this
because it seems a natural condition that no amount of theory can undo,
ego and emotion are always lurking.
Sometimes the OP's persist. When that happens I even agree that one way
to try to stop the propagation of some of these silly hobby horses, eg.
to distract their self-absorption, is via insult which has a chance of
giving them pause to entertain more productive themes. This has
happened to me and although it made me angry at the time, there were
cases where it caused me to learn something and those made up for the
times it didn't. I used to work with a guy who was constantly going
behind my back. Not being witty enough to come up with clever insults,
the only way I could minimize this was to spew him with profanity in
public view about twice a year. This worked with him because nobody had
ever talked that way to him before. I was a little ashamed of myself
for doing that but not as embarrassed as I was by some of my other deeds
and all in all I think it was worth it for the organization's sake.
Of course, I ran a risk (unemployment) for doing that whereas there's
not much personal risk doing it on a newsgroup. This group is pretty
tame when it come to the insults - some others are full of death
threats. But when the insult doesn't give pause to the OP and he
doesn't have the manners to see that his attitude isn't generally
welcome a bigger problem shows up. For me, it's all the same problem /
natural condition as we see in western world politics, the problem isn't
the number of inadequate politicians rather the great mass who vote for
the egotists/noise-makers/attention-getters/time-wasters who don't give
a hoot about the subject at hand. The masses are just as much at fault
by keeping these threads alive.
If these OP's are ignored, I am confident they will eventually go away.
Even if I'm wrong about that, the '90%' noise will get quieter.
Sometimes an expert's silence can be deafening. In the end it's their
decision to stay mute.
I feel better now,
pc
ps: I realize this very post is actually 'noise'. I've seen a few
private news groups where one must be accepted in to participate. The
kind I like is be one where one needs permission to post but everybody
in the world can read. Before the internet, that kind of elitism was a
perfect set-up for propaganda machines, for example, IBM's. It doesn't
seem so risky now.
JOG
my chops. I absorb the information I find the best I can - those who've
been in this field for a long time may not be aware of just how much
crap there is out there to wade through nowadays, in search of
illumination. As such I appreciate all critical commentary, which I
note at its own merit.
However I honestly do find character discussion distracting and
actually detracts from valid points. While I understand the frustration
behind them, logical discussion _is_ read by people like myself, and
although you might not always see affirmation, you must remember it
_does_ have an effect on independent readers, even if ignored by an OP.