Re: Buffer cache statistics (ratios) and CBO SQL optimization?

wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au (Noons) wrote in message news:<73e20c6c.0401132308.d2b8def_at_posting.google.com>...
> joel-garry_at_home.com (Joel Garry) wrote in message news:<91884734.0401131604.7b7805a9_at_posting.google.com>...
>
>
> > > Precisely. It's hard to make "libel" become a synonym to "injury"...
> >
> > It ain't easy. But it actually has been done:
> > http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html#Number%208
>
> Doubt that will stick in any country other than US...
> Physical injury is very clearly what the original
> law was all about, reinforced by all the examples provided.
> And that is fine. Libel is NOT physical injury.
> Except in some over-exhalted judiciary imagination.

Click around that cyberlibel, he's Canadian!

Remember, libel comes from English common law, modified by statute. So a lot of stuff does apply to both US and current and former commonweal. And a lot doesn't. And how international fora relates to all this is quite unsettled.

>
>
> > Note also you don't have to prove damage (which was news to me, I'm
> > really rusty at this stuff).
> > So if we say Geo is an adulterous woman, s/he can sue. Actually
> > anyone can sue for anything, but at the risk of malicious prosecution
> > backwash.
>
> Hehehe! Would love to see how well that would stack up
> in any other country than the US...
> As a matter of fact, IF we said that in THIS newsgroup, then I'd agree
> (s)he could sue. Due to the nature of the newsgroup. Read on, please.

England is far more libel-conscious than the US. SNL did a hilarious routine about a UK press conference with Prince Charles... "So, you're saying the Prince would accept a pizza delivered to his back door?" "Only if it is an extra-large Sausage" or something like that - it went on and on and got worse :-)

>
>
> > Check out the "disparage" part. I must say, I've seen some
> > disparaging words around here.
>
>
> I've seen PLENTY of disparaging words in critiques
> by scholars to other's work in Universities and tehnical
> organisations. And I still have to see anyone get sued over
> that. This is NOT, I repeat: NOT! a social encounter newsgroup.
> It is a technical newsgroup.
>
> Anything here that may be classified as invalid technical information
> is open to quite strong remarks, of any nature. They relate to the
> technical material, not the persons involved. Of course normal
> socio-educational restrictions may prevent one from getting too "heavy",
> but some may not have such qualms. Provided their comments stay
> on the technical content, then there is NOTHING that anyone can
> construe as matter for judicial intervention of the "libel" kind.

Big proviso, that, hard to keep to in a trollified flamefest.

>
> Of course someone involved in a "multi-whatever dollars" company
> might feel at a disadvantage to have their information exposed
> as incorrect. The same however would happen if a competitor did
> that exposing. What, they gonna send to court ALL their competitors
> for doing their job? Which is to compete? Gimme a break.
>
> Either it is accepted that this newsgroup is of a technical nature
> and then it's like ANY other technical forum where ideas may be
> accepted or rejected based on their TECHNICAL merit (NOT the size
> of the promoter's purse).
> Or it is accepted that it is a social newsgroup in which anyone has
> to be subjected to whatever social opinions may happen. And like
> any social environment, one is free to accept or reject what is
> then only a commercial proposition. Not a technical one.

How can an unmoderated group be either-or?

(And about those "commercial propositions" in social groups... interesting choice of words :-)

>
> In either case, I find it hard to believe anyone would have grounds
> to see a court case through.

True, but gosh-darn, haven't you seen some of the cases that have?

>
> As for the strong language used against one or another, I can't
> comment: it's purely a personal choice. I would never mention
> Don's hair style in a technical comment on one of his books,
> no matter how revolting it may be to me. The hair style, I mean.

At this point, I would be happy to have that much hair :-)

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/images/king_don.jpg

>
> Others might use that argument in a technical discussion to reinforce
> an opinion about one of his technical statememnts. Their choice.
>
> I do however reserve the right to use whatever language I feel
> appropriate for trolls and other idiots off-topic of the NG.
> Others might disagree. Fine by me. Waiting for the first "libel"
> suit from a troll: THAT will be fun!
>
>
> > For the most part, yeah. But the viewpoint of a corporate counsel
> > looking at the issue of employees posting from corporate resources
> > must necessarily be defensive.
>
> Disagree. Like I said: this is NOT a social group, this is
> a technical and professional group. That is a COMPLETELY
> different proposition.

Still don't see the relevance of that. If someone says I'm a technical dolt in alt.fan.depeche-mode, how is it any different than saying it here - or in alt.fan.karl-malden.nose? The mere publication is the issue.

>
>
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> wizofoz2k_at_yahoo.com.au.nospam

jg

--
@home.com is bogus
http://www.freetommychong.org/