Re: index rebuilding...

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:3E3EEBD1.4892B20E_at_exesolutions.com...
> Pete Sharman wrote:
> >
> > Totally agree. I'd even take it one step further and ask does it really
matter
> > anyway (apart from being interesting theoretical stuff of course!)?
Still, I
> > must say the "discussion" between Don and HJR has put a smile on my face
each
> > time I read a new bit!
> >
> > Pete

Not much of a "discussion". He references an 8-year old paper, I point out its inaccuracies, he gets personal about it, Richard Foote chips in to point out he's wrong, Don Burleson goes mysteriously quiet.

> Us academics hang on every pointed jab. <g>
>
> Daniel Morgan

I'd actually be sad if it came to that. Don wrote a lot of inaccurate stuff, and I pointed it out, albeit 'pungently'. He immediately got down and dirty with the personal stuff. There were no personalised pointed jabs coming from this direction. It was his writing that was woefully naiive and inaccurate and out-of-date (and this isn't the only article of his that suffers in that way: you should read his stuff on hit ratios).

Still, I've a mind to get my hands on some 8-year-old dodgily-obtained source code, and go into the consultancy business. It would appear to be a sure-fire route to success.

There: I've got personal now!

Regards
HJR Received on Tue Feb 04 2003 - 02:47:24 CST