I have started a new thread, rather than hijack the thread where the issue started Database Design & Concepts/Database Experts Opinion Please.
Pootle flump

I have no intention of "opening hostilities" or "sniping". But there is a problem, so let's deal with this directly, instead of pretending we do not see it. Notice that as established practice to avoid conflict, I am dealing with the behaviour, the actions, the problem, and avoiding naming people.

1 An honest and forthright seeker asks a straight-forward question.
2 (It may well be that the responders here have answered other questions and helped other people in the past, but that is not visible or relevant to this thread.) As you can see in this thread, they have actually confused the issue; avoided the question/answer; and made it the seekers problem.
3 It is a great disservice to give the seeker misinformation; false information.
4 I am here to answer seeker's questions, I will avoid "debate" with the responders who are clearly well-established here, and already identified by the real authorities as being completely ... well, ignorant on the subject. There is no use trying to debate a subject with someone who will not read the textbooks; who has not actually practised the theory; and whose argument is limited to what each technical term means or peripheral items, without understanding either the process or the whole; who can only deal with one small item/concept at a time.
5 If the site is honest, it will allow other points of view, welcome higher understanding of technical issues and theory. The seekers can take what they like and leave the rest. Unfortunately, sometimes there is no way to cut through the introduced confusion, and answer the seekers question, without cutting through the confusion and answering the seekers question. If we are all adults we can focus on the subject matter and ignore the rest; if we are not we will get distracted by everything but the subject matter, focus on personalities; hijack the thread for our own purposes; etc. A disservice.
6 In order to avoid conflict and personalities, it is established practice to name the behaviour, the problem, and not the person; how is one to answer the seeker, to rise above the flotsam and jetsam, without naming it ? But no, some will consider even that "rude" in spite of my attempts to use established protocol; and some responders will demand conflict anyway.

----------

If the site is honest, the cream will rise to the top, as an ordinary organic occurrence, and the quality of the site will increase, and with it the readership; technical truth will be upheld; the intelligent and technically capable will be recognised. It is not possible to answer most questions on technical subjects without confronting this issue, this gap between the actual expertise and the trumpeted expertise of the responders. The culture will be one of celebrating technical merit, a low tolerance of misinformation.

If it is not, the mediocre will attack anyone who does conform to their mediocrity; they will demonise them, call them names and drown them out; they will get involved in personalities (avoiding the technical matter); again pick at single irrelevant points while blissfully missing the whole; returning the site to the level which it was. If the site is "owned" by the resident few responders, masquerading as "authorities", the results are quite predictable. The culture of the mediocre is to celebrate mediocrity. They are deeply afraid of anything that threatens it. They will postulate and provide reviews on subjects, without ever having read the books or understood the concepts or practised the theory or gained experience. This is the hallmark of the mediocre, it makes them feel superior to the very thing that they know nothing about. There will be a high tolerance of misinformation, confusion and non-resolution.

I wish. There was no action taken last time. I left the site in disgust due to no action being taken to stop the constant attacks by a few obsessive posters, on the real experts. If it happens again, then the seekers lose again, the site loses again; and the mediocre win at keeping the site dumbed own to their level. One way or another, what the site really is, will be proved again by the "actions taken": protect the right to post technical facts (which includes identifying the non-facts); or protect the mediocre who attack the technical facts.

Just look at the way they have demonised Codd, Date, and Pascal. A bunch of obsessive posters think themselves better than international, acknowledged, published, giants in the field; whom real practitioners and experts hold in esteem. But you want me to ignore the latter and respect the former. Sorry, that is not possible.

Seekers (Ketchupaholic is a perfect example) may not know exactly what Normalisation is, but being honest and technically capable, they certainly know what Normalisation is not; they come here to get understanding, clarity, confirmation, but instead they get confusion, misinformation, and what-Normalisation-is-not served up as "normalisation". And anyone trying to correct or counter that misinformation is the Bad Guy.

What's worse is, years of confusion and misinformation reinforce the false belief that Normalisation is hard, confusing, and can be done in many different ways. That is all nonsense, the truth is it is a straight-forward science; and as such, whether it has been applied or not is easily determined. It is freely available to anyone who will read the textbooks and apply it as a science (and it remains a confusion to anyone who doesn't). Sure, it takes time and practice to master, and yes, some have more apptitude than others, but it remains a pure science.

Is it a Bad Thing in this site to be (a) technically capable and (b) have communication skills ? I thought that was the purpose of a forum on Database Design & Concepts., and as such it would be welcomed. Sure, I do not fit into the culture of making short pronouncements without backing it up with technical theory and explanation; again I have the readership in mind, I do not seek to impress or counter the resident few. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Some people are impressed by numbers of posts, volume; others are impressed by quality, substance. Personally, I think 250 posts of technical substance is of more relevance to the readership, than 15,000 posts of misinformation, confusion and contradiction; but I will let the readers decide for themselves.

----------
I have a simple suggestion in order to provide higher levels of service to the seekers; Avoid responding to other responders.

And to uphold the technical integrity of the site: avoid posting about subjects one does not have a formal, qualified, practised background in; and (unfortunately) correct misinformation the moment you see it being treated as relevant, ignore it otherwise (lest you be drawn into conflict with a dedicated and confirmed flamer).

----------

For those who do read, and who hold professional qualifications in esteem, the condition suffered by a few obsessive responders here, is the subject of study by the American Psychological Association; it is well-documented and well-known in cognitive circles. I may be an acknowledged expert in certain areas of IT, but I am not an expert in these matters; I am quite happy to read and understand the experts in such matters. Here's a link to just one article (there are many):
Unskilled and Unaware of It

The danger is that those who are less skilled and earnestly seeking, do not know that, and find out the hard way.

The healthy action in order to serve the community, is to correct the afflicted; the criminal action is to protect the afflicted, and to continue afflicting the community. Or to somehow blame the person who is protecting the community by exposing it.

Whatever action is taken will prove exactly what the site is.

Hi Derek

I'm afraid I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through all that. I have skim read it as best I can in the time available. I'll make my point and you can respond, drawing my attention to anything especially important to you in your post as you wish but please be aware - I won't get involved in a debate argued in essays rather than concise points.

The last time round I was one of your few advocates. I would like this time round not to have to be. As such, I want to nip any nastiness and conflicts in the bud. That was the point of my post. Drop the history, come in and debate matters without insinuation regarding the ability or knowledge of the other posters. It is quite possible to disagree with everyone else, even privately think we are all ill informed idiots, and remain courteous and respectful. If you want to see an example of the right way to hold a diametrically opposed view to almost everyone else in the 'Concepts forum then please have a nose at some of dportas' posts.

pootle flump ur codings are working excelent.

Pootle

Thanks.

I have emailed Pat, I am waiting for an answer before I respond.

there is of course the alternative perspective
if this forum isn't to your liking then don't come. that's not meant in a nasty., hostile or any other viewpoint. its just a statement of this is how it works, if that is not to your liking, then you on your own are not going to change that approach. so if its not something your can deal with then don't.

Healdem

It is not about whether this forum is to my liking or not.

It is about the false information posted here that (a) gives seekers and viewers incorrect guidance and thus demeans the value of the site and (b) what one should do about it. 50% of the time I can let it slide, do nothing about pointing out the erroneous post, and simply post an alternate view, and the seeker can choose what they like; the other portion of the time one cannot avoid commenting on the erroneous post.

This leads to conflict. The easiest way to resolve conflict is to reference authority texts. The impediment there is there are a few frequent posters here who are quite ignorant of the subject matter and consider themselves authorities; and take it very personally when their error is pointed out. When people who are ignorant of the subject think themselves better than the authorities/authors of the subject, then conflict is unavoidable, and the resolution is impossible.

I was looking for a more mature approach to avoiding conflict, without having to post essays summarising what the acknowledged authorities on the subject have already written, and what is accepted as standards by practising professionals.

But if the site is owned by a few obsessive posters who post erroneous information on subjects they evidently (by virtue of the evidence of their own posts) have no knowledge, understanding or experience, then let's tease that out. If the site actively protects these people, then that needs to be identified.

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant.

Your refusal to support your statements does not render other people's opinions false.
Your insistence on labeling people with many many years of database training, education, and experience as "dishonest", "ignorant", "mediocre", etc, renders you an absolute jack-ass.
A complete knee biter.

The cream has already risen to the top, Derek. And if you want to be there yourself you will have to behave, and you will need to support your statements for a change.

This site doesn't have to have perfect information vetted by "authority texts". Most people will find it because they type something into Google and stumble across a post here, but they'll be looking at five other sites as well. Sure, I have a few good references and I'll occasionally actually cite them, but before I go to the trouble, I consider the odds that someone has that particular text or that it's worth their while to buy it are pretty low.

That's assuming we agree who the authorities are. Most people will agree that Date and Codd are authorities on the relational model (except where they disagree) but there are dozens of other subjects we discuss.

In general, if you're talking to someone who completely disagrees with you, your best bet is to make a reasonable case for yourself, and just stop. After you've made the basic arguments there's only minutia left, and that's where you run into what economists call diminishing marginal returns, the skinny is that you get less and less the more you write.

In fact, it's also a sure fire method of preventing flame wars: you make a your point and you stop posting. Yeah, it's harder than it sounds and that's why there are a lot of flame wars on the 'net, but it works.

The cream has already risen to the top, Derek.

Ah, sparring with dairy metaphors. Gotta love it!

Fab response sco08y ++1

Don't have a cow, dude!

Oh go ahead, have some cow.... They tell me that "moo juice" is good for you!

-PatP