Location Structures Approaches, Pros & Cons

#41

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Mark Johnson wrote:
"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

That means that someone who answered likely just skipped the question.
So I answer what seems to be their objection, but then necessarily
raise the original questions.

You have yet to answer even one objection

I might say that of you.

Quote:

That's a good reason to discuss it. Problems might reside in what had
been deemed settled and axiomatic.

Well that confirms the Neo hypothesis! You think you're going to
find some flaw in elementary set theory

If I personally think I've discovered something, I am content to
remind myself that it's surely be discovered many times, before.

And you keep engaging in this ad hominem. It shows one thing, and one
thing only. You feel you have nothing more to say. You see this as an
argument, even a contest, and you've surrendered the field. Me, I'm
just asking simple questions. Nothing more.

Quote:

I've heard that line of thinking before.

I'm not sure you even understand what I've been writing.

#42

Bob Hairgrove wrote:

Quote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:22:08 -0800, Mark Johnson
102334.12 (AT) compuserve (DOT) com> wrote:

Bob Hairgrove <invalid (AT) bigfoot (DOT) com> wrote:

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:56:13 +0100, Bob Hairgrove
invalid (AT) bigfoot (DOT) com> wrote:

Relations are not sorted at all.

But when they are,

They aren't!!

the sort or result of the sort is by definition no
longer the - relation?

Doesn't that just strike you as mere semantics? A relation is unsorted
because by definition any sort attribute - isn't?

Troll. *plonk*

We should deed poll you to Bob Hairtrigger ;-)

After numerous posts I have reached the same conclusion - either ...

(a) Troll, or
(b) Crackhead (which might explain the sustained posting rate and
incoherency).

Cheers, Frank.

#43

Mark Johnson wrote:

Quote:

Furthermore, I think I understand any trepidation in facing such
simple examples as the Presidents, or the horse race, or the layout
for tomorrow's paper, in that if any tie between a real database of
tables is further severed with the RM which supposedly inspired it by
the introduction of a simple sort, then the utility of the db remains,
while the RM perhaps is seen to recede further into the lofts of
academia.

Pure comedy gold.

Marshall

#44

Frank Hamersley <terabitemightbe (AT) bigpond (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

(a) Troll, or (b) Crackhead

Your behavior is pathetic, and you really should know better. And you
need to stop this. There's no point to your posting this. It just
clogs up the ng, needlessly. Take a breath. Take a break. Let it go.

#45

Mark Johnson wrote:

Quote:

Your behavior is pathetic,

That's a personal attack. You should know better.

Marshall

#46

Mark Johnson wrote:

Quote:

I'm not sure you even understand what I've been writing.

Que?

Marshall

#47

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Furthermore, I think I understand any trepidation in facing such
simple examples as the Presidents, or the horse race, or the layout
for tomorrow's paper, in that if any tie between a real database of
tables is further severed with the RM which supposedly inspired it by
the introduction of a simple sort, then the utility of the db remains,
while the RM perhaps is seen to recede further into the lofts of
academia.

Pure comedy gold.

Better than Newhart? All over a simple sort. But that was the
character he portrayed, after all.

#48

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

I'm not sure you even understand what I've been writing.

Que?

So you're Manuel?

#49

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Mark Johnson wrote:

Your behavior is pathetic,

That's a personal attack.

No it's not. But I'll gratefully and gladly give you the last word,
here. Enough already.

#50

Mark Johnson wrote:

Quote:

"Marshall Spight" <marshall.spight (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Pure comedy gold.

Better than Newhart? All over a simple sort. But that was the
character he portrayed, after all.

Heh heh. Good one.

I forgot to mention, but I also thought you Patton line was pretty
funny.

Marshall