Re: How to calibrate the CBO

"Ron" <support_at_dbainfopower.com> wrote in message news:0oSdnTtmVpqGCLDdRVn-gw_at_comcast.com...
>
> Hello Howard,
>
> Sorry, that you are displeased that my correct answers and were not up
to
> your high standards :-)

They were incorrect. It needs to be said, even though you won't acknowledge it.

> I truly believe then we provide user with the correct information

You didn't. You offered incorrect advice regarding archiving and backups, and your proposed solution for reading the alert log via an external table would have resulted in truncated lines which would render the entire exercise pointless. That is not "correct information". It is erroneous and misleading information. And still you won't admit it.

>and
> right direction.

Well, if you can call misinformation pointing someone in the right direction, then I suppose so. I prefer to call a spade a spade, however. You were not helpful to anyone wanting to know about archiving and how backup and recovery works, and you were not exactly helpful to someone wanting to read their alert log via a select statement, assuming they'd like to read all of it and not just 80-character lines of it.

>I agree, that it was not 100% spoon feed solution,

Spoon fed? You didn't feed them at all. That is the point.

>but this
> was not my intention. I prefer teach how to fish.

Then teach them how to fish properly, with accurate information and understanding of Oracle. By your own admission, you've posted to this group for just a couple of days. You have already botched the process of giving decent advice twice. You have already felt able to pass judgement on people who have been giving extremely accurate advice here for months and months and months. That is a pretty poor beginning in my book, and doesn't come under the rubric of teaching people how to fish at all. Not even close.

> I believe life shows who is prospering and benefit other people with
what
> they know and achieve and who is flaming others on a newsgroup forums.

Your beliefs are irrelevant. You have offered two pieces of lousy advice. And you have felt yourself qualified to pass judgement on others you barely know. I believe that says something about you, not about me or anyone else's propensity to flame. It says you don't know what you're talking about, but like to think you do.

> At this point, please, lets stop flaming and continue helping people.

You stop the flaming, then, and I'll continue to help people with accurate, useful advice. You could try doing likewise.

> If you don't like my posts please ignore them,

That is one thing I won't do. When you tell people (incorrectly) that 'in the worst case, you restore from the last backup', that is not only wrong, but it is dangerous. It's also breath-takingly ignorant, but that's another matter. I can't ignore you, because its misinformation like this, spread by people like you, that I cannot afford to let stay on the public record without challenge. Read Richard's post again: its crappy advice like yours that people like he and I have to pick up the pieces from when they come into a training room, their heads full of garbage.

>but let not make out of
> this newsgroup our personal battleground - this is spamming.

Your unfounded pontification about the merits of Richard's critique of Don Burleson's article is what started this. You stop the spamming, improve the quality of your advice, and I won't have a problem with you in the future at all.
HJR Received on Fri Feb 13 2004 - 22:23:21 CST