>>>>
>>>>Yeah, I've got a few of his books but honestly I avoid his public forum stuff. He doesn't seem to know it's possible to be "corrective" but not rude.
>>>
>>>His books and articles are immensely valuable, but his forum posts and even interviews over the years have considerably less value.
>>>
>>>Some have accused him of being too much a theorist - I think it's unfair because so much of what he's written has practical value. But his ad-hoc commentary is what hurts him the most.
>>>
>>>He's had a decidedly negative view of the Microsoft platform for a long time. Prior to SQL Server 2008 there was justification in saying the database wasn't strong enough to play against the big boys. But his comments continued even after the huge strides MS made in SQL 2008 and 2012.
>>
>>How about this argument for singular versus plural: SQL programming is supposed to be done with a set orientation. What is a set?
>>
>>"In mathematics, a set is a collection of distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right."
>>
>>It does not matter if one habitually uses Persons or People to describe a set or people. It's only important to recognize that we're talking about a set. A singular set should be named. So, is a set containing people to be called a PersonSet or a PeopleSet? ;)
>
>Mike,
>
>I am glad that you brought up the word Set, since it is so clearly defined. It only has 464 meanings. :-)
http://puzzles.about.com/library/weekly/blmosdef.htmTore - you're such a joker. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_(mathematics)
