Re: Dependencies

From: Arthur <mechhunter_at_rocketmail.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 06:59:43 GMT
Message-ID: <3a8e1f2d.8980567@news.iinet.net.au>

>
>Not to be rude, but this newsgroup does not *owe* anyone anything. And I
>seriously doubt your average of "2 days for an answer". If you post a
>question here, you should expect a variety of things to happen, after
>all this is an unmoderated newsgroup. Among the things that could happen
>*can* be a long time to get an answer, incorrect answers, and the
>occasional appearance of a rude answer. You can also get a correct,
>timely answer which happens in this newsgroup ALL THE TIME.

        Sure, I expect a lot of answers and I also expect people with a 'do it yourself' attitude answer.

>As for the smart arse comment "about 'do it yourself'", Mr. Morgan was
>very polite in responding that this was an easy question would could be
>answered very easily by generating your own test case. Nowhere in your
>original question did you state that you only had 2 days until the exam.
>Nowhere in your original question did you state that you were pressed
>for time and if you had time, you would figure it out on your own. Maybe
>if you had explained your predicament a little better, you would have
>gotten a different response.
>Mr. Morgan's response was an answer in and of itself and I'm sorry that
>his answer (and mine) enraged you so much that you felt the need to
>spend time writing your retort. Time, I might add, that could have been
>spent finding out the answer to your question. My response was a
>tangential comment on Mr. Morgan's response. Your newsreader can verify
>that I responded to his comments, not your question.

        Enrage, I actually find your answers and his amusing. I have the knoweldge but you go and do it yourself 'attitude' is pretty selfish. Like I said, I am all for trial and errors but I believe that if someone ask a simple question that in itself it not trying to 'covered' up a mistake, I fail to see the harm in a simple answer.

>> If you not willing to help or 'share your knowledge' on the newsgroup,
>> my opnion, DON'T post or reply to ANYTHING - all you are doing is
>> discourging the questioner in asking further questions. I believe in
>> Trial and errors, but I also believe in a quick help now and then.
>
>I'm sorry Arthur, but you obviously do not pay attention to who answers
>questions in this newsgroup. There were only two people who replied to
>your question. Daniel Morgan and myself. If you take a moment to have
>your newsreader sort by SENDER, you will see that Mr. Morgan has taken
>lots of time to answer many, many questions. I'm sorry that the time
>that he spends is "discourging the questioner in asking further
>questions".

        If you has BOTHER to read another posting that I did down the group, you wil see that I HAD posted another posting about the same question and apologizing that I did not make it CLEAR that I needed help in the matter and guess what, I had two responses that were more than helpful and as I pointed out, MORE than WILLING to share their knowledge.

>As for myself, I don't pretend to be in the same league as some of the
>other responders, i.e. J. Lewis, S. Bakker, H. Rogers and the COUNTLESS
>OTHERS who make this newsgroup a success but I don't have time to
>enumerate here. And I know that I don't answer as many questions as some
>other people in this newsgroup. But if you do a little research, you
>will find that I do answer questions and I do share my knowledge. Part
>of the knowledge that I was trying to impart on this thread was the
>soapbox answer of seeing countless people ask questions that could be
>answered easily if they took the time to perform little test cases.
>Another thought that I was trying to impart is that learning how to
>answer your own questions can be a great skill to acquire.
>Unfortunately, I see too many people looking for the "quick fix" or the
>answer in a bottle. I did not explicitly state that you were one of
>these people and I'm sorry if my comments offended you. I was speaking
>of *some* people in general.

        If you also had BOTHER to keep intouch with the posting I do on this newsgroup, since I am NEW to Oracle and I have done a lot ot asking, I am a FIRM believer of 'trial and error', unfortunately, there's a few individual that believe that ALL answers can only be asked if it concern the great mystery of the oracle and anything less is a 'Do it yourself'.

>Now....if you have bothered to read down this far, you will find the
>answer to your question. I hope that it is not too late....
>
>The precedence for objects is (personal object, personal synonym, public
>synonym). If a view or procedure was created based on a public synonym
>and an object was created with that same name at a later time, then the
>view or procedure *may* become invalid. It all depends on wether or not
>the personal object is nearly identical to the object the public synonym
>points to. Do they have the same columns? If they differ, then the
>referencing object will become invalid. If they don't differ, then the
>referencing object may stay valid.
>
>I would have like to have taken more time to provide you with a simple
>test case illustrating the above answer, but I have simply spent way too
>much time writing this response.

	That you have. *smile*
	Listen, I am not trying to fight or nothing, I just DO find it

discouraging that when you ask a questions that if someone is not willing to help in answering, the idea of 'DO it yourself' in my opnion, REALLY does not encourage someone to 'trial and error'. THINK about it for a moment on problems you might have encountered and needed advise on a quick fix just so you can move on - what would your reaction be when all you get is 'Do it yourself'. NOW, if the answers WERE available in the manual, that is a different matter altogether.

        And you are right, Mr Morgan was not rude or anything, and I hope what I wrote did not impled that he was.

>HTH,
>Brian
>

	Cheers,
	Arthur

Received on Sat Feb 17 2001 - 00:59:43 CST