Gibberish. Sophistry. Gorilla dust thrown to obscure what's probably happened here. What's probably happened is that you had a reason--or thought you did--but that's now thrown into doubt and so you're trying to obfuscate the matter. What's probably happened is that you were motivated to assume that I hadn't read the thread (I mean, you said as much) as an easy way to deflect scrutiny of your reasoning. Except, I did read the thread, which means your assumption was wrong. Rather than admit that, again the tactic is to obfuscate. I've seen it a million times.
Fun story. If you had put that much effort into actually reading the thread in the first place you would have been able to answer your own question. For what it is worth, it is recognized that you did go back and eventually read the thread – and thus answer your own question – later once you realized how dumb the question was.
Maybe you're right. Maybe I didn't read the thread. Thing is, you haven't demonstrated that yet. You could've, though. You could've really put me in my place by laying to rest the lingering doubts that you know anything about databases, at all. You could've, and yet you can't, because you don't, and so you didn't, and now it's too late.
Oh well! Happy New Year. Try sometime new. Read a book about relational databases for a change. Peace!
Perhaps I could have chosen to put you in your place, but why would I want to? It makes no difference to me what you think. You have clearly not thought this through.
By avoiding going down that pointless road to nowhere, you offered me some wonderful creative writing that I have been quite amused by. Had I put you in your place instead, all I would have gotten in the end is something to the effect of "Oh, yeah." How boring. That would have been the biggest waste of time ever. The outcome here has been much more beneficial.
And with that, I thank you for the amusement you provided. It has been fun.
