Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Michael D. Thomas" <mdthomas AT mindspring.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: internetworkers-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:internetworkers-
> bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Steven Champeon
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 12:41 PM
 
> I can't really speak for Michael, but I suspect writing an article on
> databases with someone he obviously believes doesn't know anything
about
> databases must not be high on his list, either.

Quite the contrary, Steve! I'm all for it! I would be delighted to
collaborate with you on article for the web site. I've always found your
writing to have great imagery and I'm sure that, as a writer, I have
tons to learn from you.

In fact the easiest thing is to create an article that just lists the
links to the original posts. Or, you could also just edit the posts
together into some cohesive whole. Dave: I'm very proud of what I've
contributed and I give you full permission to do with them what you'd
like. I would like to review what you come up with, though.

And I don't believe that Steve doesn't know anything about databases. I
just didn't like how the insert and create table statements were
described in the original post. That's it. 

Okay... well, this thread was a good warm up for me and I'm glad to hear
that there are those that enjoyed these posts. However, in the course of
the thread there have been some statements about me that I'd like to
clear up. Specifically, I'm responding to statements of the nature:

"But I'm terribly sorry to have prompted you to waste so much time
trying to decapitate this straw man you've built.

Alan, don't let Michael scare you..."

I know, I know... I'm being all defensive and I don't "get the point."
But ya know, these statements (and others) are pretty personal and
aren't particularly relevant or productive. To keep it brief, I'll just
respond to all of the non-technical material directed towards me in
these last few posts at once. 

1) I'm not trying to scare anyone. Just suggesting a way for a newbie to
learn about databases. I worked hard to provide what amounts to a
self-study course and I'm proud of it. It was a great exercise.
2) I understood the "key point." I didn't /agree/ with it. This is an
open forum -- you can't control how people respond to your posts. If you
wish to control how people respond, then perhaps you should put your
post on a website you control.
3) If anyone feels that my responses have somehow been detrimental to
the community, then let's discuss that. I'm dedicated to being a
positive force in the InterNetWorkers community. If I've somehow stepped
out of bounds, then tell me. The standards of contact for this community
do evolve and can evolve.
4) /My/ key point is that the original description of the core SQL
statements was inaccurate and misleading. I've stated why. No one has
disagreed with me. I really, really wouldn't want someone to share that
analogy in a job interview. But maybe I'm missing something. I'd love to
hear how it is a great analogy for a different way of using relational
databases. Here it is, just so nobody has to go dig it up.

" If you can take your guitar and fetch it from its case, that's a
SELECT.
If you can tune your guitar, that's an UPDATE.
If you can put your guitar back in its case, that's an INSERT.
If you can dash your guitar against a speaker in Townshendesque
mock-rage, that's a DELETE.
If you can make a guitar, that's a CREATE. You sort of have to know what
you're doing, and how it will be stored/fetched/played and maybe even
how to make it impervious to Townshends."

I'm happy to continue to discuss databases on this thread, but I'm no
longer interested in talking about me (unless it's about how my posts on
this thread have been detrimental to the community). Of course, anyone
else is welcome to talk about me. But maybe you could do a subject line
annotation, such as the [kook] suggestion from a few weeks ago.

Cheers!