THe OverRelational Manifesto (ORM)
U-gene
"… the “The Third Manifesto” is formal and logical. However, The
OverRelational Manifesto (ORM) cannot unconditionally accept the claims
of the “The Third Manifesto”, because, in our opinion, the
premises, which are its basis, are incomplete. Recall that, answering
the first question “What concept in the relational world is the
counterpart to the concept "object class" in the object world?”, the
“The Third Manifesto” considers the two possible versions
1. domain = object class
2. relation = object class
"The Third Manifestо" argues strongly that the first of these
equations is right and the second is wrong (ORM agrees with this) and,
further, its arguments are based just on the first version.
Note that ORM does not claim that the propositions of the “The Third
Manifesto” are erroneous. However, ORM does not doubt that these two
answers (even the right one) to the question in the preceding paragraph
are not only answers to the question about the possible relationship
between the “object world” and the “relational world.” There is
another approach that can be described by none of the answers proposed
in the “The Third Manifesto”.
…
ORM assume that the value describing the state of any entity is a set
of relations (or, more definitely, relation values), which is a subset
of the relational database describing the state of the whole
enterprise.
ORM claims that a system that allows to specify explicitly and to
manipulate such subsets is the required system that possesses the
properties of both object and relational systems. Accordingly, the main
requirement of ORM is the following:
The value describing the state of an entity of an enterprise must be
represented as a set of relation values.
Any system satisfying the main requirement will be referred to as an
R*O-system.
Remark. Therefore, to relate the “object world” and the
“relational world”, ORM associates object with a set of relations.
Note that the concept of database appearing in RMD is also defined as a
set of relation. Essentially, ORM regards the database as a collection
of subsets (not necessarily disjoint, even embeddings are possible); by
definition, each subset may also be considered the database.
…
The type system necessary for description and manipulation of data,
constraints on the data integrity, and a set of operations are
described. It is shown that complex structure definition, in which
these types are used, can be treated as definition of set of relational
variables (R-variables). The common rule for definition and naming of
possible R-variables is formulated, which asserts that the definition
of complex reference structure, in which path expression
"name1.*.*.nameZ" is correct (where "*" is any, possible empty
sequense of names), can be interpreted as definition of a relation
variable named as "name1.*" , in which the scalar attribute named as
"*.nameZ" exists…"
You can find full version (preprint, PDF, 37 pages) on
www.TheORM.narod.ru or on http://www.arxiv.org/abs/cs.DB/0602052
Dear ALL. I'm very interesting for your opinion on the ORM. You can
leave you messages here, or on www.TheORM.narod.ru, or by e-mail
grigo...@yandex.ru.
Bob Badour
It sounds pretty stupid and rather useless to me. Exactly what problem
does it address that is not already addressed at least as well?
U-gene
What exactly?
>...and rather useless to me
Fortunately, I know many guys having opposite opinion. So I don't think
it's my problem.
> Exactly what problem does it address that is not already addressed at least as well?
Do you really think that "already-addressed-problem" means
"no-such-problem-already-at-all"? Do you really believe that each found
decision is true? You shoud be very happy...
The problem is old enough and many well-know persons try to solve it. I
just offer ather decision - nothing more. In my opinion is has some
useful possibilities not allowed in other decisions.
"
The OverRelational Manifesto (below, ORM) proposes a possible approach
to creation of data storage systems of the next generation. The need
for such new systems is stipulated by the fact that the capabilities of
the existing DBMS are not satisfactory for development of complex
information systems. In essence, the matter in question is the
possibilities of an adequate description of a complex enterprise.
...The expressiveness of such a system is comparable with that of
object-oriented programming languages. On the other hand, the approach
proposed admits the fundamentality of the relational model of data ,
including the possibility of using that model as a formal basis for a
data storage system of the next generation.
...
The OverRelational Manifesto confirms the most important positions of
its predecessors. Similarly to "The Object-Oriented Database System
Manifesto" it supports the idea of long-term stored complex objects.
Similarly to "Third-Generation Data Base System Manifesto" it assumes
that the existing systems for data storage can be used and developed.
Similarly to "The Third Manifest," it tends to preserve the purity of
ideas of the relational data model.
On the basis of the approach proposed by ORM, a system can be
developed, which can be treated, first of all, as a system for creating
an adequate, active, and long-term model of the enterprise that is
controlled by the user and provides the user with data about its state.
"
David Portas
exactly what problem you are trying to solve or what you think is
"missing" from existing descriptions of RM. I haven't figured it out
from your paper. Quote:
"the main requirement of ORM is the following: The value describing the
state of an entity of an enterprise must be represented as a set of
relation values."
Why is that any different from a relational-valued attribute or indeed
any other type that allows relational assignment? It seems to be
covered by TTM - specifically that relation values are permitted as
values in relations.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
U-gene
to answer it. But can I answer you? My question is not new for me
because I asked some person who knows D well before but nobody can
answer me. In this question I propose my interlocutors to compare ORM
and TTM.
Little preliminaries. In this example I'm possible inaccurate and I
omit very important subjects (keys for example). And it is big enough.
The long entry.
Goods are shipped from warehouses. We have to know how many goods was
shipped from some warehouse.
//We create type to describe warehouse
CREATE CLASS WAREHOUSE
{
Name String;
}
GO
//We create type to describe shipment
CREATE CLASS SHIPMENT
{
//--
No INTEGER;
WareFrom WAREHOUSE;
//--it was information from header of invoice
ShipmentItems SET OF //-- and this is a set of invoice lines
{
Article STRING;
Pieces INTEGER;
}
}
GO
//information of invoice lines implemented as stored
ALTER CLASS SHIPMENT IMPLEMENT ShipmentItems AS STORED;
GO
//O, I've forgotten about constructors,
ALTER CLASS WAREHOUSE
ADD WAREHOUSE(InitialName STRING)
IMPLIMENT AS
BEGIN
Name = InitialName;
END
GO
//slightly other way
ALTER CLASS SHIPMENT
ADD SHIPMENT(InitialNo INTEGER, InitialWareFrom WAREHOUSE);
GO
ALTER CLASS SHIPMENT
IMPLIMENT SHIPMENT(InitialNo INTEGER, InitialWareFrom WAREHOUSE) AS
BEGIN
No = InitialNo;
Warehouse = InitialWarehouse;
END
GO
//Now I can create a number of new objects in our DB
//create object to describe some warehouse
NEW WAREHOUSE("SomeWarehouse");
//NEW in non-pocedural commands, so I can write...
GO
//create object to describe some shipment...
NEW SHIPPMENT(1, Object(Warehouse<Name = "SomeWarehouse">));
GO
//...and edit this object
INSERT SHIPMENT<No = 1>.ShipmentItems VALUES ("SomeArticle", 100);
GO
...
Now we can create relational variable openly (i mean that we already
have a lot of relational variables created implicitly; i call them
R-variables) and implement it as variable which contain value
calculated on values contained in that, created implicitly R-variables.
One of these R-variables we implicitly created before is R-variable
named as 'Shipment'. In this R-variable scalar attributes named as
'ShipmentItems.Article', 'ShipmentItems.Pieces', 'WareFrom' (and
possible other ones) exist.
CREATE ShippedGoods AS SET OF
{
Article STRING;
Pieces INTEGER
}
IMPLEMENT AS
SELECT ShipmentItems.Article,Sum(ShipmentItems.Pieces)
FROM Shipment
WHERE WareFrom<Name = SomeName>
GROUP BY ShipmentItems.Article;
GO
Really variable ShippedGoods is full analogue of view.
It was just entry into my question. The question is much shorter.
With time we have started to sale our goods. So now we have to define
new type to describe sale events. But every sale is a shipment too, so
we define type SALE as subtype of SHIPMENT.
CREATE CLASS SALE
EXTEND SHIPMENT
{
...
SaleItems SET OF
{
Article STRING;
Pieces INTEGER;
Price FLOAT;
}
}
GO
//here we have to store information of sale lines
ALTER CLASS SALE
IMPLEMENT SaleItems AS STORED;
GO
Of course, we mustn't forget, that sold quantity of goods have to be
shipped from warehouse. So we have to re-implement inherited component
ShipmentItems as calculated on values contained(stored) in component
SaleItems.
ALTER CLASS SALE
IMPLEMENT ShippedItems AS
SELECT Article, Sum(Pieces)
FROM SaleItems
GROUP BY Article;
GO
So in class SALE information about shipped goods is calculated.
And after the definition of new class SALE we have to do NOTHING on
early defines view ShippedGoods to get information both about real
shipments and about shipments for sales.
In other words in R-variables the information is collected both from
components defined as stored and from components defined as calculated.
A lot of subtypes of type SHIPMENT can exist in system and in each
subtype the component ShippedItems can be re-implemented in different
ways - we must know nothing about it but every time we will get
correct information in early defines view ShippedGoods (of course if
implementation is correct).
Is it possible in D?
Anyway I answer you question in sometime.
David Portas
I'm not sure if I've understood the problem correctly, but this:
> ALTER CLASS SALE
> IMPLEMENT ShippedItems AS
> SELECT Article, Sum(Pieces)
> FROM SaleItems
> GROUP BY Article;
looks like a derived relation. Specifically something like the
following (partly from memory) in Tutorial D:
SUMMARIZE SaleItems PER {Article} ADD SUM(Pieces) AS TotalPieces
If the problem is a parts explosion then you need the TCLOSE operator
in there as well (which is something not directly supported by SQL
incidentally).
What am I missing?
--
David Portas
mountain man
news:iPZYf.55634$VV4.9...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> U-gene wrote:
>
>> ". the "The Third Manifesto" is formal and logical. However, The
>> OverRelational Manifesto (ORM) cannot unconditionally accept the claims
>> of the "The Third Manifesto", because, in our opinion, the
>> premises, which are its basis, are incomplete.
> It sounds pretty stupid and rather useless to me. Exactly what problem
> does it address that is not already addressed at least as well?
The problem is called "data processing". The incomplete premises of the
RM cover the data but not the process, with the result that other theories
need to be harnessed in order to manage the processing of data. For example,
the RM does not have an atomic element, or definition of anything related to
a formalised line of SQL code that we might call a program, yet such code
has been stored in RDBMS (as stored procedures) for almost a decade.
The usual place for Date to mention this in his massive amounts of
literature
on database systems theory is by way of a small diagram in introductions
in which we find a box with "database" and another (separate) box called
"application software".
The problem is that everyone accepts as "good enough" a theory of data
all by its little lonesome self, whereas what is actually required in the
fullness
of time is a theory of data and of data processing.
--
Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
paul c
> ...
> The problem is that everyone accepts as "good enough" a theory of data
> all by its little lonesome self, whereas what is actually required in the
> fullness
> of time is a theory of data and of data processing.
Would like to know where Date has ever said that, let alone "everyone" else.
p
Bob Badour
>>It sounds pretty stupid...
>
> What exactly?
Your whole idea sounds stupid.
>>...and rather useless to me
>
> Fortunately, I know many guys having opposite opinion. So I don't think
> it's my problem.
Uselessness is not a problem. One can simply ignore the useless.
>>Exactly what problem does it address that is not already addressed at least as well?
>
> Do you really think that "already-addressed-problem" means
> "no-such-problem-already-at-all"? Do you really believe that each found
> decision is true? You shoud be very happy...
Could you try to write something coherent and sensible? Exactly what
problem does it address that is not already addressed at least as well?
I mean other than coining some useless and meaningless new term?
mountain man
news:bzhZf.3504$_u1.1270@pd7tw2no...
The RM is a theory of data objects.
It fails to address program objects.
(eg: sql stored procedures).
And as far as the assertion that a theory of data objects
is different from a theory of data processing objects, I'd
be inclided to think that Date has never seen it this way
because all he is interested in is the data objects.
OTOH it is my contention that what will be required in the
longer term will be not just be a theory of data objects,
and another theory of program objects, but an integrated
theory of both data and program objects, together known
as data processing objects.
--
Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.html
U-gene
You can read on this problem in TTM. I just have other solution.
>>...or what you think is "missing" from existing descriptions of RM.
Nothing! I think that relational data model needs no changes to be very
useful. But what do you mean when you say " existing descriptions of
RM".
I know very simple definition of concept "data model": " ...1) a
collection of data structure types....2) a collection of operators or
inferencing rules...3) a collection of general integrity rules..." (it
is about not only relational, but any data modal) Also I know, that a
type is a set of values. It is easy, isn't it?
Of course system, which implement some X-model, has to implement these
three items. This implementation must include X-variables assigned to
contain values of types existing in X-model. And describing these
variables we define a set of names, which named all types, all
variables, all elements of their structure and all other thing. It's
very important to understand that these names is used to any
manipulation on system, on any value stored in this system.
Why do I say about names? Let's imagine we can use two different
program systems to complete some task. Using first system we have to
introduce 100 different names to name different program objects (I mean
types, variables, attributes or something else - it doesn't matter
really). Using the second system we have introduce only 50 names. The
using of second system seems to be easier, doesn't it? So can I suppose
that the quantity of names, introduced in system to complete some task,
can be treated as measure (one of measures) of its expressiveness?
By the way - now we can say more definitely why using of usual
combination of OO program and relational DB is very hard. The possible
answer is because we introduce two different sets of names - one in
OO program and second in relational DB. We have to remember meaning of
the names twice and (I think this is hardest part) we have to set
relationships between this two sets.
Trying to solve these problems people has offered sundry approaches.
The first one sounds to be easy. The using of two different sets of
names follows from the necessity to use different program objects,
which allows to implement different task and to realize different
properties. So it seems that we need to find some universal set of
program objects, which allow realize all properties we need. For
example - does relation looks like class? OK let the something exists
looking both like class and like relation and now we need only one name
to name this formation. But this is wrong way because it leads to very
strange formations and ideas - like un-normalized "relations",
mixing of types and variables, very un-formal (and anti-formal ever)
admission. So the result is very dismal because the system we've got at
last is neither Object-Oriented nor Relational.
"The Third Manifesto" is right absolutely when it tries to find the
possible logical relationships between relations and objects to avoid
such dismal result. OO and relational properties are orthogonal and it
needs different types and different variables to realize these
properties. And I believe that this approach allows some reducing of
quantity of names we operate with because the names of types defined by
us are the names of domain ("type = domain"). So the two sets (we spoke
before about) have some intersection. But anyway we have two sets of
names.
The ORM's offers absolutely other approach. It also operates with two
different set of program object to realize orthogonal OO- and
relational properties. But this approach allows use only one set of
name for naming of object of these different sets.
I've understood that I need to paint some some for further answer. I
can make in three-four hours.
Bob Badour
>>>Like Bob, I couldn't find anything new. Maybe you could summarise
>>>exactly what problem you are trying to solve...
>
> You can read on this problem in TTM. I just have other solution.
What problem? If the TTM already addresses the problem well, why would
we need another solution? What does your solution do that no other
solution does? How is it at least as good a solution as the existing
solutions?
I have yet to discern any problem that your 'solution' solves other than
coining some useless and meaningless new term that I suppose you want to
be credited with coining.
> Why do I say about names? Let's imagine we can use two different
> program systems to complete some task. Using first system we have to
> introduce 100 different names to name different program objects (I mean
> types, variables, attributes or something else - it doesn't matter
> really). Using the second system we have introduce only 50 names. The
> using of second system seems to be easier, doesn't it?
Hardly. I can write a program as a single procedure without factoring
out any reusable code, without identifying any cohesive subunits all the
while reusing variables of compatible types where-ever possible. That
program will require fewer names because I did not bother to name any
subroutines and because I maximized variable name reuse.
The resulting program would be a complete mess that would be impossible
to debug or maintain.
Alternatively, I might decompose a program into small cohesive units
that in many cases will be provably correct and (suitably named) will
facilitate human comprehension. In each of those small cohesive
subroutines, I might minimize variable name reuse by limiting each local
variable to a single task with a name describing that task.
The resulting program would be well organized and relatively easy to
debug or maintain.
U-gene
>>any other type that allows relational assignment? It seems to be
>>covered by TTM - specifically that relation values are permitted as
>>values in relations.
Hello again. You can find my full answer on
http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks.htm.
U-gene
>>in there as well (which is something not directly supported by SQL
>>incidentally).
>>What am I missing?
Answer is on page http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks.htm too
U-gene
>>we need another solution? What does your solution do that no other
>>solution does? How is it at least as good a solution as the existing
>>solutions?
You seem to be very interesting on this problem. I have a pair of
answer to David and I think You should read it to understaend what I
speak aboutYou can find it on page
http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks.htm.
Bob Badour
I read your longwinded nonsense, and it is a total non-answer. Confused
and irrelevant. Basically, you are pulling a Celko.
You are nothing but another self-aggrandizing ignorant. Plonk!
U-gene
favorit DB- and RM- terms are just "stupid" and "idiot". You seems to
be really great theorist.
The dog is barking - the wind is bearing.
U-gene
>Hardly. I can write a program as a single procedure without factoring
>out any reusable code, without identifying any cohesive subunits all the
>while reusing variables of compatible types where-ever possible. That
>program will require fewer names because I did not bother to name any
>subroutines and because I maximized variable name reuse.
>The resulting program would be a complete mess that would be impossible
>to debug or maintain.
>Alternatively, I might decompose a program into small cohesive units
>that in many cases will be provably correct and (suitably named) will
>facilitate human comprehension. In each of those small cohesive
>subroutines, I might minimize variable name reuse by limiting each local
>variable to a single task with a name describing that task.
>The resulting program would be well organized and relatively easy to
>debug or maintain.
I don't mean what you can do using the same language (I'm sure all
variables you use stared only with "stupid" - (eg "stupid_counter",
"stupid_string" etc) and types only with "shit"). I think that's your
life.
For example in polimorphous languages only one name can be bound with
different implementation. We can't do this in monomorphous languages,
so we have to use many different names and remember what each name
means. You can write as you wish, but using a polimorphous system
anyway seems to be easy? or not? Waiting for your next bark :)
U-gene
>>If the TTM already addresses the problem well...
Are you sure?
One month ago I sent very simple question to dbdebunk.com.
"...initial assumption, which all reasonings and conclusions are built
on, does not seem to me full. I mean the question " What concept in the
relational world is the counterpart to the concept "object class" in
the object world?" and two answers
1. domain = object class
2. relation = object class
I'm not sure that these two answers (of course, the first one is true
and second one is false) are only possible ones. And what is more - I'm
not sure, that the question itself is only one question we should
answer to find relationship between objects and relations. Really these
assumptions look like just your personal opinion, because there is no
any argument for adequacy of only these cases.
How can you argue this assumption?..."
No answer yet. May be can you answer?
Once again. TTM is buinl on very simple assumptions. They aren't wrong
(I think so) but nobody proves that this is only possible question and
these are only possible answer. For me it seems like fundamentally
other approach can exist and it may be just interesting thing to
understand if this approaches can really exist. I'm sure it exists.
Of course you can shuffle words "stupid" "idiot" and "shit" (You seem
to be master of this action) But on
http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks.htm (at the end of page)
you can find simple question. Show me the answer in Tutorioal D.... or
continue to shuffle words....:)
Alfredo Novoa
Hi,
> One month ago I sent very simple question to dbdebunk.com.
>
> "...initial assumption, which all reasonings and conclusions are built
> on, does not seem to me full. I mean the question " What concept in the
> relational world is the counterpart to the concept "object class" in
> the object world?" and two answers
> 1. domain = object class
> 2. relation = object class
> I'm not sure that these two answers (of course, the first one is true
> and second one is false) are only possible ones.
Indeed, but if the first one is the true then all the others are false.
3. scalar type = object class
is also true but it is the same as 1.
But of course there are more relationships between OO and the
Relational Model.
For instance:
operator = method
pointer = OID
scalar value = object
scalar variable = object
scalar value = instance
Etc.
> And what is more - I'm
> not sure, that the question itself is only one question we should
> answer to find relationship between objects and relations. Really these
> assumptions look like just your personal opinion, because there is no
> any argument for adequacy of only these cases.
If classes and domains are the same then we have a relationship between
objects and relations. Loosely, the objects are the scalar values
holded in the relations.
> How can you argue this assumption?..."
It is evident for everyone who knows the meaning of "relationship".
re·la·tion·ship n.
The condition or fact of being related; connection or association.
classes/domains are a connection between objects and relations.
> Once again. TTM is buinl on very simple assumptions. They aren't wrong
> (I think so) but nobody proves that this is only possible question and
> these are only possible answer. For me it seems like fundamentally
> other approach can exist and it may be just interesting thing to
> understand if this approaches can really exist. I'm sure it exists.
Please, return when you have a true new approach. There is nothing new
in your stuff.
> Of course you can shuffle words "stupid" "idiot" and "shit" (You seem
> to be master of this action) But on
In this case they seem to be justified words.
> http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks.htm (at the end of page)
> you can find simple question. Show me the answer in Tutorioal D.... or
> continue to shuffle words....:)
CREATE CLASS SHIPMENT
{
No INTEGER;
WareFrom WAREHOUSE;
Items SET OF //-- and this is a set of invoice lines
{
Article STRING;
Pieces INTEGER;
}
}
var Shipment base relation { No Integer, WareFrom Warehouse, Items
relation { Article Char, Pieces Integer } } key { No };
But this is not a very good design (although a lot better than your's).
It would be better to do this:
var Shippent base relation { No Integer, WareFrom Warehouse } key { No
};
var Items base relation { No Integer, Article Char, Pieces Integer }
key { No, Article };
constraint ItemsHaveShipment Is_Empty(Items not matching Shipments);
Regards
Alfredo
U-gene
>>var Shippent base relation { No Integer, WareFrom Warehouse } key { No };
>>var Items base relation { No Integer, Article Char, Pieces Integer }
Looks once again on http://www.theorm.narod.ru/david_portas_asks .htm.
In R-projection these two relation variables (but with other names
"Shipment" and "Shipment.Items") really exist!!!
The expession...
CREATE CLASS SHIPMENT
{
No INTEGER;
WareFrom WAREHOUSE;
Items SET OF //-- and this is a set of invoice lines
{
Article STRING;
Pieces INTEGER;
}
}
...just other way to define these two variables, which you believe to
be "better design". But you cannot understand at all, that "CREATE
CLASS SHIPMENT" define a set of relation, once again - SET of
relations but your...
>>Shipment base relation...
is not a SET - it is just single relation. Do you understang the
difference between single relation and SET of relations? It is the same
as difference between single relation and DB.
And (I'm sure now) that some persons here need to get a lessons of
reading. My question is not "how to describe SHIPMENT variable in D
language" at all. I know it very well. I speak about the type
specification and type implimentation, about polimorphous names, about
binding etc. and show with example how easy TheORM allows to realize
some things. My question is "How D language can realize these things?
if it can do it at all..."
Really such "high-level" answer make me laugh.
>>3. scalar type = object class
Where does this idea appear from??? This is true of course, but if you
think that TheORM is about this you really don't undertand what TheORM
is about. So your justified words is not about TheORM.
x
"U-gene" <grigo...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1145445624.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
x
He described how to carve a cork to fit flawlessly in two holes - one round
and one square :-)
Alfredo Novoa
>is not a SET - it is just single relation. Do you understang the
>difference between single relation and SET of relations? It is the same
>as difference between single relation and DB.
Relation valued attributes in base relvars are deprecated except in
some rare cases, and this is not one of them.
>And (I'm sure now) that some persons here need to get a lessons of
>reading. My question is not "how to describe SHIPMENT variable in D
>language" at all. I know it very well. I speak about the type
specification and type implimentation, about polimorphous names, about
binding etc. and show with example how easy TheORM allows to realize
some things. My question is "How D language can realize these things?
if it can do it at all..."
Tutorial D might solve the problem a lot better than your stupid crap,
but it does not allow undesirable features like sub-relvalrs and
super-relvars, relation type definition, etc. Although you could create
a valid D with these features.
Remaining nonsenses snipped.
Marshall Spight
> > Of course you can shuffle words "stupid" "idiot" and "shit" (You seem
> > to be master of this action)
>
Incorrect. There is never justification to use such words. Never.
This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they? They
hypothesize qualities of the opposite speaker.
In fact, I believe the best way to raise the level of discourse
on this newsgroup would be for extended further reading. In
particular, I am thinking of Miss Manners. Once the basic
material is mastered, we could move on to the advanced
stuff, like transaction processing or type theory.
Recommended for all humans:
Marshall
Alfredo Novoa
It is simply a supposed relational language with some features
deprecated by Date & Darwen.
Regards
Alfredo
Alfredo Novoa
> > > Of course you can shuffle words "stupid" "idiot" and "shit" (You seem
> > > to be master of this action)
>Incorrect. There is never justification to use such words. Never.
That's your opinion.
>This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
>But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they?
They can be used to describe a big part of the ideas posted here.
>They
>hypothesize qualities of the opposite speaker.
Sometimes with a very high certainty degree.
Forrest Gump's mother said stupid is what stupid does.
>In fact, I believe the best way to raise the level of discourse
>on this newsgroup would be for extended further reading. In
>particular, I am thinking of Miss Manners.
I disagree. Polite nonsenses don't make a higher level of discourse.
Regards
Alfredo
Marshall Spight
>
> > > > Of course you can shuffle words "stupid" "idiot" and "shit" (You seem
> > > > to be master of this action)
>
> >Incorrect. There is never justification to use such words. Never.
>
> That's your opinion.
Correct. When you are reading a usenet post, you can scroll
up to the top to see the sender of the message. That is
whose opinion you are reading.
> >This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
> >But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they?
>
> They can be used to describe a big part of the ideas posted here.
They can be so used, but they should not be so used.
> >They
> >hypothesize qualities of the opposite speaker.
>
> Sometimes with a very high certainty degree.
That has not been my experience.
Regardless, even if this were true, there is still no
justification for abusive language.
> Forrest Gump's mother said stupid is what stupid does.
Indeed. That is why, when I am discussing issues such
as civility with people who are ignorant on the topic, or
who have some innate difficulty with it, I try to be
patient and polite, in the same way that I try to be
patient and polite with those who are ignorant or who
have difficulty with technical subjects. Likewise, I hope
for patience and politeness from my superiors in whatever
field or context.
Sometimes I fail, of course; such is the human condition.
But I still try.
Politeness is the hallmark of civilization; in its complete
absense, civilization itself is impossible. I am not exaggerating.
> >In fact, I believe the best way to raise the level of discourse
> >on this newsgroup would be for extended further reading. In
> >particular, I am thinking of Miss Manners.
>
> I disagree. Polite nonsenses don't make a higher level of discourse.
Civility and intelligence in discourse are independent; you have
drawn a false dichotomy. Notice how I am able to rebut what
you have said without calling you an idiot. If I had, in fact,
referred to you with an insulting name, my abusive language
would have distracted from my actual point, rather than
strengthened it.
In fact, the level of intelligence in this group is what it is;
abusive language doesn't raise or lower it. All that abusive
language can do is to make it a less pleasant place to be.
How is that a worthy goal?
Marshall
Bob Badour
>>>Of course you can shuffle words "stupid" "idiot" and "shit" (You seem
>>>to be master of this action)
>>
>>In this case they seem to be justified words.
>
>
> Incorrect. There is never justification to use such words. Never.
So, don't use them.
> This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
> But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they? They
> hypothesize qualities of the opposite speaker.
When I use them, they are empirical observations. I don't know about
when others use them.
> In fact, I believe the best way to raise the level of discourse
> on this newsgroup would be for extended further reading. In
> particular, I am thinking of Miss Manners. Once the basic
> material is mastered, we could move on to the advanced
> stuff, like transaction processing or type theory.
If that is the case, why did you question Bob Hairgrove's legitimacy as
a contributor here?
Sure, you and Vadim have fun doing math together. But otherwise, this
newsgroup has sunk way below the depths it was already at before you
arrived.
David Portas
> The expession...
>
> CREATE CLASS SHIPMENT
> {
> No INTEGER;
> WareFrom WAREHOUSE;
> Items SET OF //-- and this is a set of invoice lines
> {
> Article STRING;
> Pieces INTEGER;
> }
> }
>
> ...just other way to define these two variables, which you believe to
> be "better design". But you cannot understand at all, that "CREATE
> CLASS SHIPMENT" define a set of relation, once again - SET of
> relations but your...
>
> >>Shipment base relation...
>
> is not a SET - it is just single relation. Do you understang the
> difference between single relation and SET of relations? It is the same
> as difference between single relation and DB.
>
> And (I'm sure now) that some persons here need to get a lessons of
> reading. My question is not "how to describe SHIPMENT variable in D
> language" at all. I know it very well. I speak about the type
> specification and type implimentation, about polimorphous names, about
> binding etc. and show with example how easy TheORM allows to realize
> some things. My question is "How D language can realize these things?
> if it can do it at all..."
It can. As relation valued attribute(s) representing sets of items in a
relvar. Just because it can do it doesn't make it a good design.
Inheritence is also covered in TTM. They don't exclude it they just
don't have a model for it (yet), but neither do you in your model.
> >>3. scalar type = object class
> Where does this idea appear from??? This is true of course, but if you
> think that TheORM is about this you really don't undertand what TheORM
> is about.
Is there anyone other than you who knows what it is about? Anyway, the
acronym is already taken.
--
David Portas
Bob Badour
> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>
>>>>>Of course you can shuffle words "stupid" "idiot" and "shit" (You seem
>>>>>to be master of this action)
>>
>>>Incorrect. There is never justification to use such words. Never.
>>
>>That's your opinion.
>
> Correct. When you are reading a usenet post, you can scroll
> up to the top to see the sender of the message. That is
> whose opinion you are reading.
>
>>>This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
>>>But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they?
>>
>>They can be used to describe a big part of the ideas posted here.
>
> They can be so used, but they should not be so used.
Such things were said to Churchill when he called someone 'that bad man
over there'.
>>Forrest Gump's mother said stupid is what stupid does.
>
> Indeed. That is why, when I am discussing issues such
> as civility with people who are ignorant on the topic, or
> who have some innate difficulty with it, I try to be
> patient and polite, in the same way that I try to be
> patient and polite with those who are ignorant or who
> have difficulty with technical subjects. Likewise, I hope
> for patience and politeness from my superiors in whatever
> field or context.
>
> Sometimes I fail, of course; such is the human condition.
> But I still try.
>
> Politeness is the hallmark of civilization; in its complete
> absense, civilization itself is impossible. I am not exaggerating.
With all due respect, civilization in the complete absense of rudeness
is similarly impossible. This is a particularly important issue
throughout civilization today at a time when the mandarins in the EU
struggle with how to avoid calling an islamic terrorist an islamic
terrorist while islamic terrorists are murdering european intellectuals.
>>>In fact, I believe the best way to raise the level of discourse
>>>on this newsgroup would be for extended further reading. In
>>>particular, I am thinking of Miss Manners.
>>
>>I disagree. Polite nonsenses don't make a higher level of discourse.
>
> Civility and intelligence in discourse are independent; you have
> drawn a false dichotomy. Notice how I am able to rebut what
> you have said without calling you an idiot. If I had, in fact,
> referred to you with an insulting name, my abusive language
> would have distracted from my actual point, rather than
> strengthened it.
Marshall, had you called him an idiot, it would have been demonstrably
untrue. The inherent anti-empiricism would have undermined your argument.
Several individuals are selling snake oil in this newsgroup, and that
snake oil can cause harm. Exposing charlatanism is a public service and
a civic duty. Your willful blindness and obstructionism are rude to
every newbie who is damaged by your failure to speak up.
> In fact, the level of intelligence in this group is what it is;
> abusive language doesn't raise or lower it. All that abusive
> language can do is to make it a less pleasant place to be.
For you, perhaps. The self-aggrandizing ignorants and those who coddle
them make it a much less pleasant place for me. I suppose, if the
newsgroup serves solely to stroke your ego, then having a bunch of
stupid ignorants eating up bandwidth is a good thing. I couldn't care
any less about your ego, though.
> How is that a worthy goal?
Yes, please answer: How is making the forum less pleasant for me a
worthy goal? How is harming the innocent a worthy goal?
JOG
> Hi,
>
> > One month ago I sent very simple question to dbdebunk.com.
> >
> > "...initial assumption, which all reasonings and conclusions are built
> > on, does not seem to me full. I mean the question " What concept in the
> > relational world is the counterpart to the concept "object class" in
> > the object world?" and two answers
> > 1. domain = object class
> > 2. relation = object class
> > I'm not sure that these two answers (of course, the first one is true
> > and second one is false) are only possible ones.
>
> Indeed, but if the first one is the true then all the others are false.
>
> 3. scalar type = object class
>
> is also true but it is the same as 1.
>
> But of course there are more relationships between OO and the
> Relational Model.
>
> For instance:
>
> operator = method
> pointer = OID
> scalar value = object
> scalar variable = object
> scalar value = instance
>
> Etc.
While I agree with virtually everything you say Alfred, I never liked
the "pointer=OID comparison.". Pointers are variable, and OID's are far
more analagous to a memory address. Of course, that doesn't diminish
the disadvantages of navigational databases, but the sofware engineer
in me always cringes slightly when I see the comparison.
Bob Badour
> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>But of course there are more relationships between OO and the
>>Relational Model.
>>
>>For instance:
>>
>>operator = method
>>pointer = OID
>>scalar value = object
>>scalar variable = object
>>scalar value = instance
>>
>>Etc.
>
> [snip]
>
> While I agree with virtually everything you say Alfred, I never liked
> the "pointer=OID comparison.". Pointers are variable, and OID's are far
> more analagous to a memory address. Of course, that doesn't diminish
> the disadvantages of navigational databases, but the sofware engineer
> in me always cringes slightly when I see the comparison.
A pointer variable has a memory address value (or a storage location
value). An OID variable has an OID value. I don't see how that makes the
comparison any less valid.
JOG
As far as I know OID's are not variable - however I thankfully do not
use OODBMS, so this is based only on peripheral knowledge. (If I need
to persist OO code in this way I see no reason not to just
boost::serialize). I did point out that this doesn't diminish the
comparison anyhow Bob, it just makes the grievance more precise, which
is always a good thing.
Bob Badour
Sure they are. OID variables are usually called references or pointers
so I can understand your confusion.
U-gene
>>difference between single relation and SET of relations? It is the same
>>as difference between single relation and DB.
>Relation valued attributes in base relvars are deprecated except in
>some rare cases, and this is not one of them.
Once again. There is NO some "Relation valued attributes" in set of
relations in R-projections at all. But there is a complex structure in
orthogonal OO-projection, but this is NOT relational projection.
R-projection is pure relational system where set of relations, defined
on set of ONLY scalar domains, exist only. OO-projection is really OO
system.
>Tutorial D might solve the problem...
O I've heard these words very often. But nobody can show it :).
In TheORM all these things looks really simply. In TheORM we don't need
use the things like "sub-relvalrs and super-relvars, relation type
definition" you write about to get really polymorphous system. Just
usual relations - it's enough.
>>...Although you could create a valid D with these features.
I couldn't. Nobody have been able still. Can you? Show me an example.
Marshall Spight
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
> > This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
> > But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they? They
> > hypothesize qualities of the opposite speaker.
>
> When I use them, they are empirical observations. I don't know about
> when others use them.
They are not empircal observations about the people, because
you can't observe the people. You can only observe their usenet
posts. This is not sufficient to judge the individuals, but it is
sufficient to judge the posts themselves. Commenting on the
posts, the ideas therein, etc. is perfectly fair game, and I am
among the harshest critics of the *ideas* of some of the people
whom you most revile. In fact, I daresay I am a much more
*effective* deterrent to the adoption of those ideas by
third parties than you are, because my refutations are
substantive and address the ideas themselves, whereas your
refutations are dominated by ad hominem insults, which intelligent
people do not find persuasive.
I will grant you that there is probably a class of person for
whom the most convincing manner of argument is who yells
the loudest or who insults the most unwaveringly, and that
your methods are more likely to reach them than mine are.
But I expect they are in short supply in this particular context,
and I also expect they are not the sort of people whom you
consider to be your natural constituency.
> > In fact, I believe the best way to raise the level of discourse
> > on this newsgroup would be for extended further reading. In
> > particular, I am thinking of Miss Manners. Once the basic
> > material is mastered, we could move on to the advanced
> > stuff, like transaction processing or type theory.
>
> If that is the case, why did you question [name deleted] legitimacy
> as a contributor here?
There was a while back an individual who was otherwise quite
reasonable, who started to veer briefly into name calling. I
dislike name calling, and I have said so on many occasions,
said so then, and likely will say so again in the future, if by
some strange chance people continue to call each other names
even after I've asked them nicely not to.
He stopped, and I have not said anything negative about him
since then. In fact, I welcome his presence. If *you* stopped
name calling and started discussing, you know, database
theory or something, I would welcome you as well.
> Sure, you and Vadim have fun doing math together. But otherwise, this
> newsgroup has sunk way below the depths it was already at before you
> arrived.
Sigh. Since you are fond of bringing up the fact that you first posted
here before I first posted here, I thought I'd go look that up and see
just when each event happened; they weren't that far apart, and anyway
my first usenet post (in another group) was 19 years ago. So I got to
reading the thread in c.d.t. that I first posted on, and damn if it
wasn't
quite interesting. Certainly *much* more interesting than this thread.
Sigh.
Well, Bob, I have just one last idea for you, which I'm sure will be
unpalatable, but there you are.
You are fond of asserting that it's fine for you to be insulting to
people
if their ideas are unsound. Clearly you don't consider politeness
mandatory, as I do. So I propose a thought experiment: what if there
were a person who was smarter than either you or I, and also
at the same time, better educated than either of us. Better able
to discuss logic, type theory, formal methods, and relational
aspects of same than either of us. And, at the same time, this
person was horribly rude to people on occasion, when he thought
their ideas were unsound. This would be a person who better
embodied the Bob Badour ideal than even you. I propose that
if your thesis about rudeness being okay was sound, then you
would really like this person. However, if your thesis was not
sound, and in fact rudeness is simply an unalloyed ill, a cancer
in the side of civilization, then you'd find this person quite
distasteful, because *my* idea, that rude people are always
distasteful, is actually the correct one.
Wouldn't it be interesting if there was such a person, and we
could see how you reacted to him? Yes, your reaction would
be quite telling, I think. Oh, oh, wait, hang on, there *was*
such a person who used to come here. Yes, and he was
much better at formal methods, logic, etc. than either
you or I. I remember now. His name was Costin Cozianu.
How did you feel about him, Bob?
Marshall
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
>>>But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they? They
>>>hypothesize qualities of the opposite speaker.
>>
>>When I use them, they are empirical observations. I don't know about
>>when others use them.
>
>
> They are not empircal observations about the people, because
> you can't observe the people. You can only observe their usenet
> posts. This is not sufficient to judge the individuals, but it is
> sufficient to judge the posts themselves. Commenting on the
> posts, the ideas therein, etc. is perfectly fair game, and I am
> among the harshest critics of the *ideas* of some of the people
> whom you most revile. In fact, I daresay I am a much more
> *effective* deterrent to the adoption of those ideas by
> third parties than you are, because my refutations are
> substantive and address the ideas themselves, whereas your
> refutations are dominated by ad hominem insults, which intelligent
> people do not find persuasive.
Given the enormous volume of gibberish the idiots post, what makes you
think anyone is going to read either position with enough care and
attention to understand your argument?
Have you considered as well that you will be tempted to cherry pick from
among their posts the ones that come closest to expressing anything cogent?
By doing so, you only help them achieve their goal of
self-aggrandizement. The poor lurker who is just starting to learn this
material will get the impression that the reams and reams of diarrheic
horseshit posted by these ignorants contain something of merit. The poor
lurker may mistake these phoney charlatans as your peers.
> I will grant you that there is probably a class of person for
> whom the most convincing manner of argument is who yells
> the loudest or who insults the most unwaveringly, and that
> your methods are more likely to reach them than mine are.
> But I expect they are in short supply in this particular context,
> and I also expect they are not the sort of people whom you
> consider to be your natural constituency.
My natural constituency are those who will initially dismiss me for
style and then shock themselves into really thinking about things when
they see me interact with someone who isn't selling snake oil.
>>>In fact, I believe the best way to raise the level of discourse
>>>on this newsgroup would be for extended further reading. In
>>>particular, I am thinking of Miss Manners. Once the basic
>>>material is mastered, we could move on to the advanced
>>>stuff, like transaction processing or type theory.
>>
>>If that is the case, why did you question Bob Hairgrove legitimacy
>>as a contributor here?
>
> There was a while back an individual who was otherwise quite
> reasonable, who started to veer briefly into name calling. I
> dislike name calling, and I have said so on many occasions,
> said so then, and likely will say so again in the future, if by
> some strange chance people continue to call each other names
> even after I've asked them nicely not to.
You questioned his legitimacy as a poster for making a perfectly valid
observation about the argument (or lack thereof) given.
Your post was anti-empirical. You questioned his legitimacy claiming
that some willful ignorant had established her legitimacy. In reality,
Bob Hairgrove established his legitimacy years before either you or the
self-aggrandizing ignorant ever showed up.
Since you and she showed up, what decent content is in this newsgroup
has been drowned out by a torrential slurry of diarrheic nonsense spewed
forth by the self-aggrandizing ignorant whose 'legitimacy' you defended
and by three or four similar ignorants.
By resorting to such obvious anti-empiricism, you impeached your
position and exposed the moral, intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of same.
It's a free world. The self-aggrandizing ignorants can post diarrheic
nonsense if they want. I can point out to the world what the diarrheic
nonsense means: they are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorants.
> He stopped, and I have not said anything negative about him
> since then.
Only Bob could tell us if you had any bearing on that or whether he
simply has not encountered another situation to make him draw a similar
conclusion.
> In fact, I welcome his presence. If *you* stopped
> name calling and started discussing, you know, database
> theory or something, I would welcome you as well.
Why would I give a flying fuck whether you welcome me? Really. I find
your welcome or your rejection insignificant and irrelevant.
Actually, I do. Very much. I know and admire more than one such
individual. I have the honesty and maturity to interact with such people
very effectively.
> However, if your thesis was not
> sound, and in fact rudeness is simply an unalloyed ill, a cancer
> in the side of civilization, then you'd find this person quite
> distasteful, because *my* idea, that rude people are always
> distasteful, is actually the correct one.
Well, I guess that's the end of your thesis, isn't it?
> Wouldn't it be interesting if there was such a person, and we
> could see how you reacted to him? Yes, your reaction would
> be quite telling, I think. Oh, oh, wait, hang on, there *was*
> such a person who used to come here. Yes, and he was
> much better at formal methods, logic, etc. than either
> you or I.
Speak for yourself.
> I remember now. His name was Costin Cozianu.
>
> How did you feel about him, Bob?
I found him anti-empirical and saw serious flaws in his arguments that
you must have missed.
Dave Greenwood
> Bob Badour wrote:
> > Marshall Spight wrote:
> >
> > > This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
> > > But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they? They
> > > hypothesize qualities of the opposite speaker.
> >
> > When I use them, they are empirical observations. I don't know about
> > when others use them.
>
> They are not empircal observations about the people, because
> you can't observe the people. You can only observe their usenet
> posts. This is not sufficient to judge the individuals, but it is
> sufficient to judge the posts themselves.
Whoa, that is something nobody ever realized! Do you really think Bob
or anyone else here cares about whether a person is an idiot in real
life? A post in Usenet calling someone an idiot is based on the
empirical observation: the content of his/her posts. Period.
And Bob does have a good eye in identifying the someone's intellectual
mediocrity based on his/her very first few posts. I am often surprised
to see so many here still encourage mediocrity by further engaging
themselves seriously with such posts.
The problem with such engagement is that a naive reader who cannot
distinguish usable material from nonsense can be misguided by the
mediocre discussant's snobbery and articulation.
Commenting on the
> posts, the ideas therein, etc. is perfectly fair game, and I am
> among the harshest critics of the *ideas* of some of the people
> whom you most revile. In fact, I daresay I am a much more
> *effective* deterrent to the adoption of those ideas by
> third parties than you are, because my refutations are
> substantive and address the ideas themselves, whereas your
> refutations are dominated by ad hominem insults, which intelligent
> people do not find persuasive.
Well, since "you can't observe the people" how do you know the above?
You have poor logic faculties that prevent you from seeing what you
write. The very fact that you diatribe extends this long itself is a
testament to it.
>
> I will grant you that there is probably a class of person for
> whom the most convincing manner of argument is who yells
> the loudest or who insults the most unwaveringly, and that
> your methods are more likely to reach them than mine are.
> But I expect they are in short supply in this particular context,
> and I also expect they are not the sort of people whom you
> consider to be your natural constituency.
>
With nobody to counterpoint the nonsense forcefully like Bob does,
chances are the likes of Neo can be markedly nominated as the ones
capable "to discuss logic, type theory, formal methods, and relational
aspects of same" than any of us.
>
> > > In fact, I believe the best way to raise the level of discourse
> > > on this newsgroup would be for extended further reading. In
> > > particular, I am thinking of Miss Manners. Once the basic
> > > material is mastered, we could move on to the advanced
> > > stuff, like transaction processing or type theory.
> >
> > If that is the case, why did you question [name deleted] legitimacy
> > as a contributor here?
>
> There was a while back an individual who was otherwise quite
> reasonable, who started to veer briefly into name calling. I
> dislike name calling,
[Excused]
>
> Wouldn't it be interesting if there was such a person, and we
> could see how you reacted to him? Yes, your reaction would
> be quite telling, I think. Oh, oh, wait, hang on, there *was*
> such a person who used to come here. Yes, and he was
> much better at formal methods, logic, etc. than either
> you or I. I remember now. His name was Costin Cozianu.
>
You are duped. All I can say is you have no clue who he is or what he
does.
Bob Badour
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
>>Bob Badour wrote:
>>
>>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
>>>>But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they? They
>>>>hypothesize qualities of the opposite speaker.
>>>
>>>When I use them, they are empirical observations. I don't know about
>>>when others use them.
>>
>>They are not empircal observations about the people, because
>>you can't observe the people. You can only observe their usenet
>>posts. This is not sufficient to judge the individuals, but it is
>>sufficient to judge the posts themselves.
>
>
> Whoa, that is something nobody ever realized! Do you really think Bob
> or anyone else here cares about whether a person is an idiot in real
> life? A post in Usenet calling someone an idiot is based on the
> empirical observation: the content of his/her posts. Period.
>
> And Bob does have a good eye in identifying the someone's intellectual
> mediocrity based on his/her very first few posts. I am often surprised
> to see so many here still encourage mediocrity by further engaging
> themselves seriously with such posts.
>
> The problem with such engagement is that a naive reader who cannot
> distinguish usable material from nonsense can be misguided by the
> mediocre discussant's snobbery and articulation.
Dave, I have a quibble. I have no objection to mediocrity. I only object
to mediocrity or worse that attempts to forcefully present itself as
excellence.
Honest mediocrity, honest ignorance, even honest stupidity and honest
laziness won't evoke a harsh word from me. I admire anyone who wants to
improve himself or herself and who is willing to put in the work to
achieve their goal -- no matter how modest the goal or how difficult the
work.
Alfredo Novoa
> > >But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they?
> > They can be used to describe a big part of the ideas posted here.
>They can be so used, but they should not be so used.
I disagree. If something is clearly too stupid to be discussed then we
can point that and to move to more useful things.
>Indeed. That is why, when I am discussing issues such
>as civility with people who are ignorant on the topic, or
>who have some innate difficulty with it, I try to be
>patient and polite, in the same way that I try to be
>patient and polite with those who are ignorant or who
>have difficulty with technical subjects.
I try to do the same until I realize that I am discussing with a
perseverant ignoramus who has not any intention to attend to reasons.
Ignoramuses might be intelligent, reasonible and they might learn.
Perseverant ignoramuses are stupid and only deserve to be quickly
debunked.
>Politeness is the hallmark of civilization; in its complete
>absense, civilization itself is impossible. I am not exaggerating.
But politeness should not be confused with sissiness. To call a spade a
spade is reasonible.
> Civility and intelligence in discourse are independent; you have
> drawn a false dichotomy.
To me, civility and level of discourse are also independent.
In my opinion the occasional rudeness is the least of the problems in
this group.
Regards
Alfredo
Alfredo Novoa
>were a person who was smarter than either you or I, and also
>at the same time, better educated than either of us. Better able
>to discuss logic, type theory, formal methods, and relational
>aspects of same than either of us. And, at the same time, this
>person was horribly rude to people on occasion, when he thought
>their ideas were unsound. This would be a person who better
>embodied the Bob Badour ideal than even you. I propose that
>if your thesis about rudeness being okay was sound, then you
>would really like this person.
This is what Bob is to me, and I like him even when I am the deservedly
scolded guy :-)
Regards
Alfredo
Bob Badour
Alfredo,
I have learned more than a few things from your posts. I would not be so
hasty to consider me either smarter or better educated. If I post
anything half-baked or just plain old wrong, you are welcome to skewer
me for it.
I genuinely like just about everybody. I don't like people who go out of
their way to harm others for personal gain or who knowingly do so to
impose some ideology on others. Other than those few, I find just about
all of us very likable.
JOG
> ...I don't like people who go out of
> their way to harm others for personal gain or who knowingly do so to
I'd certainly avoid the scientific field then if I were you. You'll
never see so many people verging on sociopathy collected together in
one arena.
In contrast most techies I meet seem more than willing to share their
knowledge, and in fact seem excited to do so in my experience.
Bob Badour
I guess I am lucky, then, that I stumbled onto engineering instead of
pure science. I agree that most techies enjoy showing off their
knowledge -- especially to an audience capable of appreciating it.
Alfredo Novoa
> If I post
>anything half-baked or just plain old wrong, you are welcome to skewer
>me for it.
I always assumed this :-)
Regards
Alfredo
Marshall Spight
> >
> > They are not empircal observations about the people, because
> > you can't observe the people.
>
> think anyone is going to read either position with enough care and
> attention to understand your argument?
I see. We have to protect the vast, speed-reading hoardes, who
will be persuaded by insults but only confused by more substantive
commentary.
> The poor lurker may mistake these phoney charlatans as your peers.
Again the professed concern for unidentified and unidentifiable
people, coupled with withering insults directed at actual
people. I am astonished that you claim such concern for
the newsgroup in general while simultaneously expressing
such contempt for so many of the people in it.
> > There was a while back an individual who was otherwise quite
> > reasonable, who started to veer briefly into name calling. I
> > dislike name calling, and I have said so on many occasions,
> > said so then, and likely will say so again in the future, if by
> > some strange chance people continue to call each other names
> > even after I've asked them nicely not to.
>
> You questioned his legitimacy as a poster for making a perfectly valid
> observation about the argument (or lack thereof) given.
I guess you have a hard time telling the difference between
commenting on a person and commenting on an idea, and
that could perhaps explain your difficulty in understanding why
I acted as I did in that situation. I only object to the first one.
If they look the same to you, though, it may appear as if I
object to both, which would indeed be a problem.
> Your post was anti-empirical.
So you keep asserting.
> You questioned his legitimacy claiming
> that some willful ignorant had established her legitimacy. In reality,
> [name deleted] established his legitimacy years before either you or the
> self-aggrandizing ignorant ever showed up.
That person's first post on usenet was in 1998; mine was in 1987.
His first post on c.d.t was on 10/21/2001; mine was less than
a year later, so your "years" is at best an exaggeration. Or should
I say "anti-empirical?" Anyway, I am unclear what your point
is in repeatedly bringing up the fact that that person's first post
was slightly earlier than mine.
> Since you and she showed up, what decent content is in this newsgroup
> has been drowned out by a torrential slurry of diarrheic nonsense spewed
> forth by the self-aggrandizing ignorant whose 'legitimacy' you defended
> and by three or four similar ignorants.
I still find it useful, and a valuable resource. If you don't, why
stay?
Mostly I also find it a pleasant place, as long as the commentary
stays focused on ideas, and stays polite.
> It's a free world. The self-aggrandizing ignorants can post diarrheic
> nonsense if they want. I can point out to the world what the diarrheic
> nonsense means: they are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorants.
Agreed. Also, I can point out when people are not being polite, and
when people are name-calling. And you can call me names for
doing so.
> > He stopped, and I have not said anything negative about him
> > since then.
>
> Only [...] could tell us if you had any bearing on that or whether he
> simply has not encountered another situation to make him draw a similar
> conclusion.
I did not say that I had any bearing on what he did. I only said
what *I* did in response to what he did.
> Actually, I do. Very much. I know and admire more than one such
> individual. I have the honesty and maturity to interact with such people
> very effectively.
I have observed here exactly the opposite. How you are elsewhere,
I have no information, so who knows? You may be quite different
in person. Which is why drawing conclusions about people based
on their usenet posts is logically invalid, as well as impolite.
> > I remember now. His name was Costin Cozianu.
> >
> > How did you feel about him, Bob?
>
> I found him anti-empirical and saw serious flaws in his arguments that
> you must have missed.
Heh. I remember the one time you and he really went at it.
In fact, he had some good arguments on his side, but I thought
you won that one on intellectual merits. Nonetheless, I have
learned a lot more from him than I have from you.
Marshall
Marshall Spight
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
> > posts, the ideas therein, etc. is perfectly fair game, and I am
> > among the harshest critics of the *ideas* of some of the people
> > whom you most revile. In fact, I daresay I am a much more
> > *effective* deterrent to the adoption of those ideas by
> > third parties than you are, because my refutations are
> > substantive and address the ideas themselves, whereas your
> > refutations are dominated by ad hominem insults, which intelligent
> > people do not find persuasive.
>
> Well, since "you can't observe the people" how do you know the above?
I don't; I freely admit the above is speculation. (Hence the "I
daresay"--
speculation is daring.) What I was pointing out was that the earlier
poster was speculating but labelling his speculation as empirical
observation.
> With nobody to counterpoint the nonsense forcefully like Bob does,
> chances are the likes of Neo can be markedly nominated as the ones
> capable "to discuss logic, type theory, formal methods, and relational
> aspects of same" than any of us.
There are vast hoardes of people who refute Neo. Bob is nothing
special in this regard, neither by weight nor by volume. He does
however represent an endpoint in decorum spectrum. (I also
note that I don't recall Neo has ever mentioned type theory
nor formal methods.)
> > There was a while back an individual who was otherwise quite
> > reasonable, who started to veer briefly into name calling. I
> > dislike name calling,
>
> [Excused]
For this I thank you, sir. (No irony.)
> > Wouldn't it be interesting if there was such a person, and we
> > could see how you reacted to him? Yes, your reaction would
> > be quite telling, I think. Oh, oh, wait, hang on, there *was*
> > such a person who used to come here. Yes, and he was
> > much better at formal methods, logic, etc. than either
> > you or I. I remember now. His name was Costin Cozianu.
>
> You are duped. All I can say is you have no clue who he is or
> what he does.
Certainly I have no clue who he is or what he does. I don't pretend
to. I only observe what he writes. Since he's not present, I will
go out on a limb and assert that what he writes is rude, and I wish
he wouldn't be that way. (I have seen him taken to task for it on
a variety of newsgroups.) On the other hand, his writing is
intellectually compelling. I think he is the only person on this
newsgroup I can think of who has mentioned formal methods,
and has provided pointers to further reading on same.
Marshall
Marshall Spight
> > > >This does not mean one cannot strongly refute others' ideas.
> > > >But the above words don't address ideas at all, do they?
>
> > > They can be used to describe a big part of the ideas posted here.
>
> >They can be so used, but they should not be so used.
>
> I disagree. If something is clearly too stupid to be discussed then we
> can point that and to move to more useful things.
Then you do not disagree. I have no objection to labelling some
THING as intellectually defective and not worth discussing.
I don't think inflammatory rhetoric is required to do so, but
I have no objection whatsoever to refutations of ideas,
no matter how forceful.
> >Indeed. That is why, when I am discussing issues such
> >as civility with people who are ignorant on the topic, or
> >who have some innate difficulty with it, I try to be
> >patient and polite, in the same way that I try to be
> >patient and polite with those who are ignorant or who
> >have difficulty with technical subjects.
>
> I try to do the same until I realize that I am discussing with a
> perseverant ignoramus who has not any intention to attend to reasons.
>
> Ignoramuses might be intelligent, reasonible and they might learn.
> Perseverant ignoramuses are stupid and only deserve to be quickly
> debunked.
I have no objection to debunking. I support debunking!
> >Politeness is the hallmark of civilization; in its complete
> >absense, civilization itself is impossible. I am not exaggerating.
>
> But politeness should not be confused with sissiness. To call a spade a
> spade is reasonible.
If the spade is an idea, then yes. If the spade is a person, then
it is rude to call it anything.
> In my opinion the occasional rudeness is the least of the problems in
> this group.
Hmmm. Well, we might not be as far apart on that issue as it appears.
Marshall
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>>They are not empircal observations about the people, because
>>>you can't observe the people.
>>
>>Given the enormous volume of gibberish the idiots post, what makes you
>>think anyone is going to read either position with enough care and
>>attention to understand your argument?
>
> I see. We have to protect the vast, speed-reading hoardes, who
> will be persuaded by insults but only confused by more substantive
> commentary.
Persuaded? No. Informed? Perhaps.
>>The poor lurker may mistake these phoney charlatans as your peers.
>
> Again the professed concern for unidentified and unidentifiable
> people, coupled with withering insults directed at actual
> people. I am astonished that you claim such concern for
> the newsgroup in general while simultaneously expressing
> such contempt for so many of the people in it.
So many? I don't express contempt for any more than a small handful.
>>>There was a while back an individual who was otherwise quite
>>>reasonable, who started to veer briefly into name calling. I
>>>dislike name calling, and I have said so on many occasions,
>>>said so then, and likely will say so again in the future, if by
>>>some strange chance people continue to call each other names
>>>even after I've asked them nicely not to.
>>
>>You questioned his legitimacy as a poster for making a perfectly valid
>>observation about the argument (or lack thereof) given.
>
> I guess you have a hard time telling the difference between
> commenting on a person and commenting on an idea
I would guess the same about you.
>, and
> that could perhaps explain your difficulty in understanding why
> I acted as I did in that situation. I only object to the first one.
> If they look the same to you, though, it may appear as if I
> object to both, which would indeed be a problem.
With all due respect, I find your methods no different than mine. I
believe I have a more realistic expectation of outcome and a more
solidly fixed moral compass.
Otherwise, your complaints about my content and style, and my complaints
about the ignorants' content and style, are no different.
>>Your post was anti-empirical.
>
> So you keep asserting.
I not only asserted it, but I gave the empirical justification for
asserting it. As I said, your post was anti-empirical just as your
response to my assertion is. The anti-empiricism undermines your position.
>>You questioned his legitimacy claiming
>>that some willful ignorant had established her legitimacy. In reality,
>>Bob Hairgrove established his legitimacy years before either you or the
>>self-aggrandizing ignorant ever showed up.
>
> That person's first post on usenet was in 1998; mine was in 1987.
What relevance does that have to the issue of either's legitimacy in c.d.t ?
> His first post on c.d.t was on 10/21/2001; mine was less than
> a year later, so your "years" is at best an exaggeration. Or should
> I say "anti-empirical?"
I question whether your measurement method is accurate. I recall Bob
from the mid-nineties at least, and I suspect Google has an incomplete
archive prior to 2001. I could be wrong about that.
Nevertheless, are you suggesting his earlier involvement with the
newsgroup than either you or the self-aggrandizing ignorant makes him
any less legitimate as a contributor here?
> Anyway, I am unclear what your point
> is in repeatedly bringing up the fact that that person's first post
> was slightly earlier than mine.
Because it demonstrates the obvious anti-empiricism of your personal
attack against him. You used length of participation in your attack
against his legitimacy. If one accepts your position that length of
participation establishes legitimacy, then Bob Hairgrove has greater
legitimacy than the willful ignorant you championed at his expense.
On the other hand, his post that the willful ignorant failed to provide
a reasoned or substantive response was empirically accurate. His
suggestion to bounce her off the bottom of the twit filter was an
empirically sound suggestion.
>>Since you and she showed up, what decent content is in this newsgroup
>>has been drowned out by a torrential slurry of diarrheic nonsense spewed
>>forth by the self-aggrandizing ignorant whose 'legitimacy' you defended
>>and by three or four similar ignorants.
>
> I still find it useful, and a valuable resource. If you don't, why
> stay?
Good question. I stayed away for a couple of years. Did that enrich the
newsgroup? If the handful of willful ignorants selling their snake-oil
here left, would anyone really lose anything of value?
> Mostly I also find it a pleasant place, as long as the commentary
> stays focused on ideas, and stays polite.
Good for you. So, then, is it okay to drive out people who can make
substantive and reasoned contributions as long as it suits what you want?
If that is okay, is it any less okay for me to drive out
self-aggrandizing ignorants when it suits what I want?
>>It's a free world. The self-aggrandizing ignorants can post diarrheic
>>nonsense if they want. I can point out to the world what the diarrheic
>>nonsense means: they are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorants.
>
> Agreed. Also, I can point out when people are not being polite, and
> when people are name-calling. And you can call me names for
> doing so.
And I can question you on your expectation for doing so. What do you
hope to achieve?
>>>He stopped, and I have not said anything negative about him
>>>since then.
>>
>>Only Bob Hairgrove could tell us if you had any bearing on that or whether he
>>simply has not encountered another situation to make him draw a similar
>>conclusion.
>
> I did not say that I had any bearing on what he did. I only said
> what *I* did in response to what he did.
So then, it is your opinion that it is okay for you to say negative
anti-empirical things about him, but it is not okay for him to say
entirely empirical things about others when you personally deem the
things said as negative?
Since you reject intellect by discarding empiricism, do you believe you
are presenting either a moral or ethical argument?
>>Actually, I do. Very much. I know and admire more than one such
>>individual. I have the honesty and maturity to interact with such people
>>very effectively.
>
> I have observed here exactly the opposite.
I disagree. I suggest your embrace of anti-empiricism in at least some
cases undermines your assertion regarding empiricism in this case.
>>>I remember now. His name was Costin Cozianu.
>>>
>>>How did you feel about him, Bob?
>>
>>I found him anti-empirical and saw serious flaws in his arguments that
>>you must have missed.
>
> Heh. I remember the one time you and he really went at it.
> In fact, he had some good arguments on his side, but I thought
> you won that one on intellectual merits. Nonetheless, I have
> learned a lot more from him than I have from you.
Good for you. At least, you are learning somewhere. That says nothing
about your earlier comparison and assertions, though.
Bob Badour
> Alfredo Novoa wrote:
>
>>>Politeness is the hallmark of civilization; in its complete
>>>absense, civilization itself is impossible. I am not exaggerating.
>>
>>But politeness should not be confused with sissiness. To call a spade a
>>spade is reasonible.
>
> If the spade is an idea, then yes. If the spade is a person, then
> it is rude to call it anything.
I would agree that it is rude to call a person "it". Is it rude to call
a person a person? Your premise is absurd on its face.
Bob Badour
> intellectually compelling. I think [Costin] is the only person on this
> newsgroup I can think of who has mentioned formal methods,
> and has provided pointers to further reading on same.
I suggest a simple google search on any of the following terms refutes
your thesis: "lambda", "predicate calculus", "type theory", "functional
programming", "state machine", "bisimulation", "denotational semantics",
"rewriting", "set theory", "code analysis", "temporal logic".
Costin's rudeness does not impeach him. The all too frequent flaws in
his reasoning and his anti-empiricism do.
Gene Wirchenko
<alfred...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well-spoken.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Marshall Spight
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> >
> > commenting on a person and commenting on an idea
>
> I would guess the same about you.
How interesting! I find that a surprising result. I would have
thought you would have considered the distinction irrelevant.
Perhaps I simply misunderstand you.
I still don't like name-calling, though. I still think it's
intellectually
unnecessary, and I still think ad-hominem reasoning is
logically invalid.
> > that could perhaps explain your difficulty in understanding why
> > I acted as I did in that situation. I only object to the first one.
> > If they look the same to you, though, it may appear as if I
> > object to both, which would indeed be a problem.
>
> With all due respect, I find your methods no different than mine.
I admit that in this thread, I careen dangerously into the territory
of becoming that which I criticize. This could perhaps be labelled
hypocracy, but I will plead simple human weakness.
> I believe I have a more realistic expectation of outcome and
> a more solidly fixed moral compass.
I am not sure I have ever said what my expectation is, so
I don't know to what you are referring here. My expectations
are quite low, however this is tempered with hope and patience,
such as I can muster, and these are often considered virtues.
I also do not see this as a moral issue, but rather a civil one.
> I question whether your measurement method is accurate. I recall Bob
> from the mid-nineties at least, and I suspect Google has an incomplete
> archive prior to 2001. I could be wrong about that.
Ah. Yes, it's hard to say definitively, but I will defer to your
memory.
> If one accepts your position that length of
> participation establishes legitimacy, then [name deleted] has greater
> legitimacy than the willful ignorant you championed at his expense.
I am the champion only of politeness.
> > I still find it useful, and a valuable resource. If you don't, why
> > stay?
>
> Good question. I stayed away for a couple of years. Did that enrich the
> newsgroup?
Honestly? You're asking me?
I really, really, REALLY thought it did. My heart sank when you
returned. I knew the amount of substantive discussion would
go way down, and it did.
> If the handful of willful ignorants selling their snake-oil
> here left, would anyone really lose anything of value?
Not that I accept your labels as such, but I believe I know
to whom you are referring, so I can answer: not much.
I do believe there is some modest value to vigourous dissent,
though; it sharpens the mind.
The most valuable members of the newsgroup, though, are
the ones who are the most patient and the most educated.
This week, that would not include either of us, sadly.
> > Mostly I also find it a pleasant place, as long as the commentary
> > stays focused on ideas, and stays polite.
>
> Good for you. So, then, is it okay to drive out people who can make
> substantive and reasoned contributions as long as it suits what you want?
I do not believe in driving people out, so no. That is why I try to
reason
with you. I reject insults as a rhetorical technique.
> If that is okay, is it any less okay for me to drive out
> self-aggrandizing ignorants when it suits what I want?
It is identically not okay.
> >>It's a free world. The self-aggrandizing ignorants can post diarrheic
> >>nonsense if they want. I can point out to the world what the diarrheic
> >>nonsense means: they are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorants.
> >
> > Agreed. Also, I can point out when people are not being polite, and
> > when people are name-calling. And you can call me names for
> > doing so.
>
> And I can question you on your expectation for doing so. What do you
> hope to achieve?
Politeness. Civil discourse. An end to ad hominem attacks, and
a return to on-topic, substantive discussion of data management.
I do not particularly expect this to happen, but I have some
modest hope.
Marshall
Gene Wirchenko
<marshal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Bob Badour wrote:
[snip]
>I am the champion only of politeness.
I go to technical newsgroups for technical correctness. Without
that, they are useless.
[snip]
>I really, really, REALLY thought it did. My heart sank when you
>returned. I knew the amount of substantive discussion would
>go way down, and it did.
Maybe, that has more to do with Neo being back, among other
things.
[snip]
>The most valuable members of the newsgroup, though, are
>the ones who are the most patient and the most educated.
>This week, that would not include either of us, sadly.
I like a technical newsgroup to have technically correct data.
Blowing off the obfuscators, the just plain wrong are pluses to me.
[snip]
>Politeness. Civil discourse. An end to ad hominem attacks, and
>a return to on-topic, substantive discussion of data management.
>I do not particularly expect this to happen, but I have some
>modest hope.
And since anyone can talk BS without getting effectively called
on it by your standards, your modest hope will likely postdate several
future blue moons.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Marshall Spight
> Marshall Spight wrote:
>
> >I am the champion only of politeness.
>
> I go to technical newsgroups for technical correctness.
> Without that, they are useless.
Since the two are independent, and each is good individually,
I would then expect you would want to maximize both, yes?
> I like a technical newsgroup to have technically correct data.
Me, too.
> >Politeness. Civil discourse. An end to ad hominem attacks, and
> >a return to on-topic, substantive discussion of data management.
> >I do not particularly expect this to happen, but I have some
> >modest hope.
>
> And since anyone can talk BS without getting effectively called
> on it by your standards, [...]
Incorrect. This is in fact the opposite of what I advocate.
Let me make it very, very simple:
1) Insulting people: bad
2) Refuting bad ideas on technical merit: good
I ask everyone to please do 2, and please do not do 1.
I *encourage* people to debunk bad ideas on the basis of
technical arguments. I have been quite consistent on this
point. I do it myself often.
Marshall
Bob Badour
In case anyone is interested in the anti-empiricism and the flaws in
Costin's logic, one can use google groups to search this newsgroup for
"singe ridicule".
One can then decide for themselves whether my objections to Costin
resulted from a dislike of rudeness as postulated by Marshall, or by his
lack of empiricism and intellectual honesty as claimed by myself.
Gene Wirchenko
<marshal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>> Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>> >I am the champion only of politeness.
>>
>> I go to technical newsgroups for technical correctness.
>> Without that, they are useless.
>
>Since the two are independent, and each is good individually,
>I would then expect you would want to maximize both, yes?
The two are not independent. Some of the rudest treatment I have
received in general has been from people who do not know (but act as
if they do).
>> I like a technical newsgroup to have technically correct data.
>
>Me, too.
>> >Politeness. Civil discourse. An end to ad hominem attacks, and
>> >a return to on-topic, substantive discussion of data management.
>> >I do not particularly expect this to happen, but I have some
>> >modest hope.
>>
>> And since anyone can talk BS without getting effectively called
>> on it by your standards, [...]
>
>Incorrect. This is in fact the opposite of what I advocate.
>
>Let me make it very, very simple:
>
>1) Insulting people: bad
>2) Refuting bad ideas on technical merit: good
>
>I ask everyone to please do 2, and please do not do 1.
>
>I *encourage* people to debunk bad ideas on the basis of
>technical arguments. I have been quite consistent on this
>point. I do it myself often.
A side-effect of that is that BS gets better coverage (since
there is more of it) than good stuff does.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Bob Badour
> Bob Badour wrote:
>
>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>>>I guess you have a hard time telling the difference between
>>>commenting on a person and commenting on an idea
>>
>>I would guess the same about you.
>
>
> How interesting! I find that a surprising result. I would have
> thought you would have considered the distinction irrelevant.
> Perhaps I simply misunderstand you.
>
> I still don't like name-calling, though. I still think it's
> intellectually
> unnecessary, and I still think ad-hominem reasoning is
> logically invalid.
What makes you think I reasoned anything using ad-hominem. I reached my
conclusions by perfectly valid reasoning. You object only to my
efficient repetition of those conclusions and ignore my reasoning entirely.
>>>that could perhaps explain your difficulty in understanding why
>>>I acted as I did in that situation. I only object to the first one.
>>>If they look the same to you, though, it may appear as if I
>>>object to both, which would indeed be a problem.
>>
>>With all due respect, I find your methods no different than mine.
>
> I admit that in this thread, I careen dangerously into the territory
> of becoming that which I criticize. This could perhaps be labelled
> hypocracy, but I will plead simple human weakness.
>
>
>>I believe I have a more realistic expectation of outcome and
>>a more solidly fixed moral compass.
>
> I am not sure I have ever said what my expectation is, so
> I don't know to what you are referring here.
That's why I indentified my belief as merely belief.
> My expectations
> are quite low, however this is tempered with hope and patience,
> such as I can muster, and these are often considered virtues.
>
> I also do not see this as a moral issue, but rather a civil one.
I agree. It is my civic duty to identify the vociferous ignorami to
those who might not yet have the faculties to identify them for
themselves or who may be complacent enough to miss the fact.
Likewise, when someone in my presense advocates medicinal remedies based
upon dilution of substances to the point where it is questionable
whether a dose even has any of the active ingredient and where the
concentration of the ingredient is many orders of magnitude smaller than
inevitable environmental contaminants, I point out that the advocated
remedy is quackery.
Insofar as no other remedy exists, such superstitions cause no harm, and
the placebo effect may even offer some comfort. Insofar as the advocacy
causes someone to forego an effective remedy, the advocacy of quackery
is harmful. I think it is wrong to sit idly by and watch someone get harmed.
I have yet to meet an advocate of such quackery who responded to the
observation in anything resembling valid reasoning or in any polite way
no matter how gently I debunked the quackery.
Given that we are undeniably discussing civics, I did not ask what topic
you thought you were discussing but what justification you think you
have for your position regarding the topic.
By rejecting empiricism, you have rejected the basis for intellectual
justification, and I expect all other justifications. Do you consider
your position a moral position? An ethical position? Do you understand
the difference?
I cannot see how you can act in a manner similar to myself while
rejecting empiricism and pretend to have either a moral or ethical
justification.
Suppose you observe the leader of a nation and decide the leader is
evil. If you voice your opinion, one could consider you rude to the
leader. If you silence your opinion, one could consider you rude or even
worse to the millions of people harmed by the leader's rule. This
involves a moral question.
However, there are circumstances where such a simple idealized morality
does not apply and where a pragmatic morality requires a different set
of rules and a different set of behaviours. Diplomatic protocol, for
instance, establishes the appropriate behaviour for a small number of
people in very limited circumstances where silence of the opinion does
the greater good. This is an ethical question.
Likewise, the ethical behaviour of a criminal defense lawyer may require
the lawyer to act solely in the best interest of a decidedly immoral
person. While some may then consider criminal defense lawyers immoral,
their ethical behaviour is required for the proper functioning of a fair
and impartial judiciary based upon adversarial advocacy.
>>If one accepts your position that length of
>>participation establishes legitimacy, then [name deleted] has greater
>>legitimacy than the willful ignorant you championed at his expense.
>
> I am the champion only of politeness.
I disagree. I find it impolite to allow these pretenders to cause the
harm they cause without any challenge.
Face it: You champion prohibition of specific words. Insofar as those
words express ideas, you champion prohibition of those ideas. The name
for that is political correctness.
Words like 'stupid' and 'idiot' express the idea that some people occupy
a range of the normal distribution of intelligence with very low
cognitive ability. Words like 'slow', 'weak' or 'clumsy' as well as
words like 'slowpoke', 'weakling' or 'spazz' express that some people
occupy a feeble range of the normal distributions of other abilities.
Now, for some reason, it is not considered impolite to say that some
people are too slow or too weak or too clumsy for some professions or to
compete at certain levels of some sports.
Of course, the cost of identifying the slow or weak or clumsy is quite
low, which places an inherent limit on the possible success of
pretenders to speed, strength or agility. And the fact that few people
make decisions based upon the fast, strong or agile feats of others
limits the public harm a pretender to these abilities can do.
Just as physical ability comprises several specific abilities, cognitive
ability comprises at least two: general intelligence and verbal ability.
Through exercise and practice, one can improve one's physical abilities,
and the same is true of one's intellectual abilities. Exercise improves
the tissues upon which these abilities rely while practice improves form
and efficiency to achieve greater results with the same tissue. We all
have innate limits to our potential even with exercise and practice.
The pretenders refuse exercise and practice while they demand
recognition and reward for abilities they lack.
Cognitive ability presents some interesting challenges: 1) Cognitive
ability affects one's ability to recognize one's limits, 2) High verbal
ability can partially mask low general intelligence, 3) The cost of
identifying the stupid or ignorant pretender to informed intellect is
much higher, 4) People make decisions affecting their own welfare based
on the words of those whom they believe speak with informed intellect.
I think those challenges (and especially #4) impose a moral obligation
on the truly informed to expose the pretenders for the benefit of
society. Since there are limits to the costs society can demand in the
name of civic duty and since the pretenders are undeterred by sound
reasoning and unassailable logic, society must allow some efficient
means to perform that duty.
Calling an idiot an idiot when they persist in public idiocy is just
such an efficiency. Sadly, usenet does not present many other efficiencies.
Other venues attempt to prevent the public idiocy through other means
such as peer review. Within academic circles, it is not unreasonable to
have to read a couple of articles per year that do not merit publication
and several that do. That's another efficiency to achieve the same goal,
but it doesn't apply in usenet.
>>>I still find it useful, and a valuable resource. If you don't, why
>>>stay?
>>
>>Good question. I stayed away for a couple of years. Did that enrich the
>>newsgroup?
>
> Honestly? You're asking me?
>
> I really, really, REALLY thought it did. My heart sank when you
> returned. I knew the amount of substantive discussion would
> go way down, and it did.
Did the substantive discussion decrease in absolute terms? What have you
done to quantify the decrease?
I suspect that one can attribute much of any decrease to you distracting
yourself with this crusade for political correctness. I suggest you add
me and a handful of others to your killfile to avoid the distraction.
Then you can get back to the substantive work you do with some others.
If one of the people you killfile says anything substantive, there is a
good chance someone not in your killfile will excerpt it in any case.
>>If the handful of willful ignorants selling their snake-oil
>>here left, would anyone really lose anything of value?
>
> Not that I accept your labels as such, but I believe I know
> to whom you are referring, so I can answer: not much.
>
> I do believe there is some modest value to vigourous dissent,
> though; it sharpens the mind.
Having challenging competition in a running race motivates one to better
oneself. Having an unqualified competitor in the race who gets lapped
three times and who thereby creates havoc on the track can spoil the
effect--especially if he then elbows his way onto the podium during the
awards ceremony.
> The most valuable members of the newsgroup, though, are
> the ones who are the most patient and the most educated.
I agree. And yet for some reason you once felt compelled to chastise me
for pointing out a couple of them to others.
>>>Mostly I also find it a pleasant place, as long as the commentary
>>>stays focused on ideas, and stays polite.
>>
>>Good for you. So, then, is it okay to drive out people who can make
>>substantive and reasoned contributions as long as it suits what you want?
>
> I do not believe in driving people out, so no. That is why I try to
> reason
> with you. I reject insults as a rhetorical technique.
This is where the distinction between general intelligence and verbal
proficiency becomes particularly important. Mathematics does not require
rhetoric but does require general intelligence.
The self-aggrandizing ignorants use rhetoric to intrude into
mathematical discussions they demonstrably cannot comprehend. My
identification of the ignorants is cautionary not persuasive.
>>If that is okay, is it any less okay for me to drive out
>>self-aggrandizing ignorants when it suits what I want?
>
> It is identically not okay.
Do you realise that the diarrheic gibberish the self-aggrandizing
ignorants post drives out many who have a lot more to contribute?
>>>>It's a free world. The self-aggrandizing ignorants can post diarrheic
>>>>nonsense if they want. I can point out to the world what the diarrheic
>>>>nonsense means: they are nothing more than a self-aggrandizing ignorants.
>>>
>>>Agreed. Also, I can point out when people are not being polite, and
>>>when people are name-calling. And you can call me names for
>>>doing so.
>>
>>And I can question you on your expectation for doing so. What do you
>>hope to achieve?
>
> Politeness. Civil discourse.
With all due respect, the diarrheic nonsense is anything but polite.
> An end to ad hominem attacks, and
> a return to on-topic, substantive discussion of data management.
> I do not particularly expect this to happen, but I have some
> modest hope.
You can make it happen for yourself. Since you do not like specific
words and specific posters, simply filter them out. Poof. Problem solved.
Bob Badour
> Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>
>>Marshall Spight wrote:
>>
>> And since anyone can talk BS without getting effectively called
>>on it by your standards, [...]
>
> Incorrect. This is in fact the opposite of what I advocate.
>
> Let me make it very, very simple:
>
> 1) Insulting people: bad
> 2) Refuting bad ideas on technical merit: good
>
> I ask everyone to please do 2, and please do not do 1.
And isn't it insulting when those whose ideas have been soundly and
irrefutably refuted simply compose another incoherent repetition of the
same stupid ideas?
> I *encourage* people to debunk bad ideas on the basis of
> technical arguments. I have been quite consistent on this
> point. I do it myself often.
How much time and effort do you suppose is reasonable to debunk someone
who will simply copy and paste reams of off-topic gibberish in reply to
the debunking?
paul c
> ...
> I still don't like name-calling, though. I still think it's
> intellectually
> unnecessary, and I still think ad-hominem reasoning is
> logically invalid.
A grand comparison compared to narrow db interests I'll admit, but WWII,
at least part of it, might not have happened if Neville Chamberlain had
been into ad-hominem logic instead of religious politeness. DB theory
is a minor factor in the area of human thought, but I'd say the economic
cost of its mistakes must be approaching that of a major war by now.
I'd say ad-hominem is fair by me since politicos have such a loose
definition of economic activity and the people here are doing rather
little damage compared to many commercial interests. On the other hand,
more than a few killing wars were started with ad-hominem arguments.
Even if I disagree with the point, it doesn't bother me when people put
their feet down, get no intelligible result and then resort to cursing
my ancestry. However, I don't think there's much useful effect from
this in a newsgroup, as the traffic on this theme might prove. In
person, it certainly can work better. I think it's okay, even brave to
call somebody a bloody eejit to their face but it doesn't carry much
weight on this remote medium.
p
Marshall Spight
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> > ...
> > I still don't like name-calling, though. I still think it's
> > intellectually
> > unnecessary, and I still think ad-hominem reasoning is
> > logically invalid.
>
> at least part of it, might not have happened if Neville Chamberlain had
> been into ad-hominem logic instead of religious politeness.
Many historians have searched for the true origins of the second
world war. Anti-semitism, rising nationalism, and resentment over
the treaty of Versailles have all been cited, but now we know
that the true culprits were "please" and "thank-you."
Marshall
paul c
Wishful thinking on any of the counts and some of the 'historians'
didn't have to search far as they lived it and I'm not talking about
Edward R. Murrow. Codd knew that politesse had nothing to do with it.
After you cut through the dogma, it's economic nationalism every time.
Sorry I'm off-topic, will shut up now.
p
JOG
> Marshall Spight wrote:
> > ...
> > I still don't like name-calling, though. I still think it's
> > intellectually
> > unnecessary, and I still think ad-hominem reasoning is
> > logically invalid.
> > ...
>
> A grand comparison compared to narrow db interests I'll admit, but WWII,
> at least part of it, might not have happened if Neville Chamberlain had
This is a ludicrous over-simplification.
Bob Badour
I suggest you read _The Gathering Storm_ and _While England Slept_ --
both by Winston Churchill.
People who shared your secular religious convictions had frequent
opportunities to stop Hitler before he became much of a threat. Their
religious adherence to your morally bankrupt political correctness led
directly to the deaths of millions of people and to the massive
expenditure of many nations' treasure. I find those men immoral even if
polite and well-meaning.
Bob Badour
The german military command were ready to cut Hitler's throat when he
re-occupied the Rheinland. They were simply waiting for France and
England to present a credible threat in response to Hitler's foolish
provocation. France and England were too polite to respond.
Marshall Spight
>
> The german military command were ready to cut Hitler's throat when he
> re-occupied the Rheinland. They were simply waiting for France and
> England to present a credible threat in response to Hitler's foolish
> provocation. France and England were too polite to respond.
Most creative godwin ever.
Marshall
Bob Badour
Thank you. However, it is an historical fact, and if you wanted to call
a godwin, you could have stopped ages ago at "that bad man over there".
JOG
To think that England and France did nothing merely because they were
being 'polite' can only be described as ignorance (or disregard) of the
complexities of the situation - France's general election, Britain's
socio-economic situation, their political relationships with USSR, etc.
ad infinitum. I defy you to find me any reputable historian who will
state that Hitler's entry into the demilitarized zone of the Rhineland
(hardly the first of his repudiations of the Versaille Treaty) and the
terrible mistake of not responding to it was solely down to
'politeness' or perhaps being too busy drinking earl grey tea?
Honestly Bob, as an an analogy of how to respond to posters like neo
this is way off. I have a great deal of respect of your knowledge of
database theory - why don't we stick to that on c.d.t.
Bob Badour
With all due respect, the root cause of their failure was a legacy of
pacifism and self loathing stemming from the stench and horror of no
man's land 1914-18. That stench and horror were themselves the product
of pig-headed stupidity on the part of the military leaders who refused
to accept the abject strategic failure of 19th century tactics and
command structures in the face of 20th century weaponry.
That pacifism and self loathing continue to tear at the fabric of
western civilisation today. It was reinforced when America lost its
half-assed war in Viet Nam, and it is being reinforced by the half-assed
war Bush and Rummy lost three years ago in Iraq.
All the things you point to are nothing more than excuses. Functioning
democracies do not put their sovereignty and national defense on hold
for general elections. Britain's socio-economic situation was orders of
magnitude better than Germany's at that time.
All France and Englad had to do was show up to the dance. The German
generals, who thought Hitler was nuts and a dangerous loose cannon, were
ready to take it from there. By failing to meet the very minimum
requirements of the Hobbesian justification for their existence, the
governments of France and England transformed a nearly dead lunatic into
an unassailable national hero.
Their 'pacifism' led directly to the wholesale slaughter of millions of
people. I fear the current pacifism and cultural self loathing will lead
to a slaughter just as horrible.
Marshall's religious opposition to certain words is symptomatic of that
dangerous legacy.
JOG
Agreed.
>
> That pacifism and self loathing continue to tear at the fabric of
> western civilisation today. It was reinforced when America lost its
> half-assed war in Viet Nam, and it is being reinforced by the half-assed
> war Bush and Rummy lost three years ago in Iraq.
Agreed.
>
> All the things you point to are nothing more than excuses. Functioning
> democracies do not put their sovereignty and national defense on hold
> for general elections. Britain's socio-economic situation was orders of
> magnitude better than Germany's at that time.
Agreed they are all dire reasons, but they were contributory to the
appalling decisions made. Of equal importance was the fact that
Germany's economy was decimated to the point its inhabitants would
blindly follow (to their deaths) any nut who would show them a glimmer
of hope out of poverty and humiliation.
>
> All France and Englad had to do was show up to the dance. The German
> generals, who thought Hitler was nuts and a dangerous loose cannon, were
> ready to take it from there. By failing to meet the very minimum
> requirements of the Hobbesian justification for their existence, the
> governments of France and England transformed a nearly dead lunatic into
> an unassailable national hero.
Agreed. But with that you complete my argument - not once in your post,
a far more agreeable description of the terrible state of affairs at
the time, do you mention 'politeness', and rightly so. This is the only
point I made objection too.
> Their 'pacifism' led directly to the wholesale slaughter of millions of
> people. I fear the current pacifism and cultural self loathing will lead
> to a slaughter just as horrible.
>
I have offered no viewpoint on this whatsoever. I absolutely respect
your opinion on it (and in fact I share the same fear), but it is
wildly OT Bob.
> Marshall's religious opposition to certain words is symptomatic of that
> dangerous legacy.
I still don't think Marshall's personal distaste for a certain style of
posting in a database forum, really has much to do with the second
world war.