Nikon FDUtility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Surfer!
  • Start date Start date
I'm not limiting my considerations at all.
Click to expand...

Well, that's contradictory, then. By your own admission:

I did consider the relational model
Click to expand...

And yet you're "surprised" when I merely submit the relational model
for consideration:

So now I'm even more puzzled why you bring in relational databases
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense!

!=> If you yourself considered the relational model, why are you so
surprised when I merely submit it for consideration? <=!

Do note that I did not recommend it! I just outlined the options.
That's all.

After which you jumped all over me for even mentioning relational
databases going as far as to question my knowledge of the hierarchical
model. That was not only way over the top but irrational.
I don't think that's the reason (although true ;-)).
Click to expand...

Oh, it's not only true but it's *the* reason! And I have "mental
scars" to prove it (coming at it from both ends)! ;o)

Don.
 
Don ([email protected]) wrote in
Well, that's contradictory, then. By your own admission:
Click to expand...

Not contradictory at all - what I *actually wrote* was:
I did consider teh relational model and rejected it as a poorer "fit"
to how a file system with a nested directory structure works.
Click to expand...

Which indicates I was considering it as a model of the *current*
(hierarchical) file system. And found it not a good fit (whiel I found a
hierarchical database model *was* a good fit.

You're quoting grossly out of context with even partial phrases instead
of quoting a full phrase. That won't get us anywhere at all. So I'll
ignore the rest.
 
Not contradictory at all - what I *actually wrote* was:


Which indicates I was considering it as a model of the *current*
(hierarchical) file system. And found it not a good fit (whiel I found a
hierarchical database model *was* a good fit.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. The *same* key question still stands:

!=> If you yourself considered the relational model, why are you so
surprised when I merely submit it for consideration? <=!
You're quoting grossly out of context with even partial phrases instead
of quoting a full phrase. That won't get us anywhere at all.
Click to expand...

Because it was totally irrelevant and gets us on these even more
irrelevant tangents.

The key is not what happened *after* you considered it.

The key is that you considered it by deny me the same right.

Why is it OK for you to consider it but when I just submit it for
consideration you jump all over me?

Don.
 
Don ([email protected]) wrote in
Because it was totally irrelevant and gets us on these even more
irrelevant tangents.
Click to expand...

The part of the sentence you did not quote was essential to its
semantics. You partial quote completely turned that on its head. Maybe
you considered the whole sentence irrelevant but you did not say so -
what you said with your partial quote was that somethng I id *not* say
was irrelevant.

I think you need to refine your quoting skills a bit - quoting is good,
quoting everything is bad, but quoting so little that it changes meaning
is even worse.
The key is that you considered it by deny me the same right.

Why is it OK for you to consider it but when I just submit it for
consideration you jump all over me?
Click to expand...

I'm not denying you anything.
 
The part of the sentence you did not quote was essential to its
semantics.
Click to expand...

No, it was totally irrelevant to the question - which question you
failed to quote and once again avoided answering!

So, instead of getting bogged down in distractions, here's the
question again and for the *third* time:


!=> If you yourself considered the relational model, why are you so
surprised when I merely submit it for consideration? <=!


Don.
 
Don ([email protected]) wrote in
!=> If you yourself considered the relational model, why are you so
surprised when I merely submit it for consideration? <=!
Click to expand...

Because I considered it *as a model of the current hierarchical file
system* and rejected it because I found a hierarchical database a *better
model of the current file hierarchical system*.

I am not surprised you submit the relational model at all - but you submit
it for something *else*.

What I am surprised about is that you do *not* apparently consider
anything at all as a model for the *current hierarchical file system* -
before even discussing a new system - which makes disussion in terms of
database models largely irrelevant. There is no basis for comparison. :)
 
Because I considered it *as a model of the current hierarchical file
system* and rejected it because I found a hierarchical database a *better
model of the current file hierarchical system*.
Click to expand...

The question was *NOT* why relational model should or should not be
rejected/accepted (that's what you tried to answer above and last
time).

The question is:

Why are you surprised when I merely submit it as one of the options
for consideration (*without* making any recommendations!).

Especially after you yourself considered it!
What I am surprised about is that you do *not* apparently consider
anything at all as a model for the *current hierarchical file system* -
before even discussing a new system
Click to expand...

And how did you come to that conclusion?

It's certainly not based on anything I wrote!

I never *recommended* any specific course of action, but merely
submitted all options for consideration.

Don.
 
Back
Top