Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Finding full-table scans?
DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3E909D38.9664C7BF_at_exxesolutions.com>...
> "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
>
> > > Hi Howard,
> > >
> > > Howard my friend, you've made mistakes here, I know I have, hell everyone
> > > has.
> >
> > True enough. Big whopping mistakes, too, at times.
> >
> > I can't recall ever passing on (inaccurate) 8-year old information without
> > so much as blinking, though.
> >
> > >
> > > So how about lightening up on Don (he didn't park next to you one day and
> > > scratch your car did he) ?
> >
> > Oh, I probably would if he wasn't such a dreadful self-publicist (and
> > technically inaccurate to boot). Or if he ever once admitted that his
> > knowledge of how indexes behave is, er, 'deficient'.
> >
> > On the other hand, this arrived in my inbox today:
> >
> > -------------
> > Mr. Rogers,
> >
> > You published: "The advice is: be warned about Burleson, because his advice
> > is frequently technically complete gibberish." You have also published that
> > I am a fraud in a public forum.
> >
> > In the USA (and in Australia, according to my attorney) this is libel, and
> > anyone who publishes a false statement is liable to pay damages to the
> > wronged party.
> >
> > If you think that I am going to sit by while you publish material to smear
> > me, you are quite wrong.
> >
> > This is notice that you are to retract your false and malicious statements.
> >
> > I hope that it will not be necessary to pursue legal action against you, but
> > make no mistake, I have the resolve to defend myself.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Donald K. Burleson
> > --------------
> >
> > I reckon I must be doing something right when plonkers around the globe
> > decide a bit of 'intimidation by mentioning my attorney' is in order.
Ah yes, the old "posting email in a public forum" etiquette.
> >
> > So I'll pass on being nice about Don. The technical, and other, accuracy of
> > his output in toto doesn't warrant it.
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
>
> My goodness it is getting a best testy out there.
>
> Burlseson is either bluffing or his attorney is taking him for a few thousand
> dollars as to collect damages on such a complaint in a US court would require
> proving damages. And it is almost impossible to prove financial damages in
> almost all situations. To claim damages from a message posted in a usenet group
> from another country would be as close to impossible as one can get without
> angering the gods.
Well, if the person posting happened to be connected somehow with a large US corporation, and the person damaged merely has to convince a Bay Area jury of flakes and nuts that there is a preponderance of the evidence, even if it is close to impossible, then the insane system still could allow legal blackmail. While even just a few years ago it was quite ridiculous, the way things are now, who knows? Personally, I don't think there are many "clean hands" in this matter.
>
> I'll support statements of fact no matter how painful to their recipient (even
> when I am that recipient). But I think it is time we drew a hard and fast line
> at c.d.o. against abusive and obscene language. One can challenge someone's
> statements on a factual basis without resorting to language best reserved for 13
> year olds and comedy clubs.
Dang, I'd like to see a comedy club DBA seminar.
jg
-- @home.com is bogus. "I'd like to be a bird and sing and spread my wings and fly. And ocassionally peck someones eyes out." - George CarlinReceived on Mon Apr 07 2003 - 17:54:32 CDT