One can only use such superlatives if one can back them up with a product
that demonstrates that it's performance matches the description. I think
Razzak's product supports his superlatives nicely.
:)Rj
At 09:29 AM 6/1/01, you wrote:
>Re: Super-superlatives and glorious-glory
>
>Mr. Burr is not alone. Neither is Mr. Cook. And I also agree it is a
>matter of style (somewhat). I don't tend to think, write or speak in
>constant superlatives, either.
>
>Thus, we may all agree to disagree and not take any of this personally. Or
>so I hope. Words used to describe a particular product do not add to its
>bottom-line functionality or usefulness. At times, however, "over kill" can
>tend to desensitize or detract from a word's impact. If we constantly call
>R:Base glorious in its present incarnation, what shall we call it when it
>moves another step higher? Super glorious? Super-duper glorious?
>Super-duper-duper glorious? I am sure you get the point.
>
>So perhaps we can leave it as a "style" issue and let it go in this
>particular medium of a list-serve. However, as a cautionary note, in a more
>"corporate" mainstream environment I would seriously consider NOT
>approaching a client with a description of R:Base as "glorious" or some
>other such superlative. I won't. I prefer to keep my job.
>
>To go a step further, "glorious" tends to step into religious territory. A
>slippery slope and not one particular suited to database developers in a
>professional capacity. A careful understanding of the definition of "glory"
>will reserve its use, I hope. And no, let's NOT get into a semantic war.
>At least not today?
>
>Mainstream America is not particularly fond of anything being touted too
>heavily - skeptics as we all are - and any superlative description will
>raise suspicion more than blind belief. Blame it on the advertising
>industry.
>
>Now, before the faithful get too tightly wound, let me explain that I have
>been a strong supporter of R:Base since 1991. I also appreciate the efforts
>and support the kind Dr. M. has put into continuing the product. I am not
>insulting anyone nor am I casting stones. Nor pebbles. Not even dirt!
>
>But I ask: What other product, taken seriously and examined carefully, uses
>superlatives in its description of itself? As far as "style" goes, one must
>be ever mindful the purpose is to SELL the product and service - and to let
>results speak for themselves.
>
>Would you go and buy a box of "Glorious Wheaties" or "Stupendous Corn
>Flakes"? Or even a "Glorious Maserati"? The addition of superlatives tends
>to detract from the delivery of the message itself. Sometimes, less is
>more.
>
>Let the product speak for itself. It is, quite simply, the best database
>product in its niche.
>
>Ken Brown
>PosiTrak, Inc.
