In my most recent column at TDAN.com, When Fowl Is All They’ve Got, I replied as follows to a comment that “Celko comments on Pascal would probably be unprintable” (emphasis added):

Actually, Celko’s comments would probably not be unprintable. He is not into that, but rather into elevating his stature via slanted self-serving descriptions of past dialogues between him, myself, and Chris Date, where he “proved us wrong”, or some such. The technique he used then, developed to perfection, was to continuously dump lots of long drivel, [often] peppered heavily with all sorts of obscure sources and references, aimed at overwhelming his discussants, and impress an uninformed audience (who he knows won’t be able to see through it all). Each time you responded to one such dump, he produced another, never sticking to the point. Not only was responding prohibitive (the objective is to wear you down), but if you did try to track down those sources and quotes, if they existed at all, you almost always discovered that either they had nothing to do with the case, or meant something completely different than, or opposite to what Celko claimed. After several such experiences you realize you’re wasting your time publicizing Celko[his other intended objective], and you give up a lost cause, which is interpreted as a “win” by him. I often tell people “don’t do a Celko on me” when I detect they employ this method (for an example, see Dawn Wolthuis’ “Proof”).

For good examples, see this old thread and this one. Succinctness is one indicator of a clear mind, and a willingness to help, not to publicize oneself.

Posted 8/26/05