Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: 9i New Features E-book

Re: 9i New Features E-book

From: Mike Ault <>
Date: 6 Jun 2004 08:57:52 -0700
Message-ID: <>

"Howard J. Rogers" <> wrote in message news:<40c2995a$0$31676$>...
> "hrishy" <> wrote in message
> > Hi Howard
> >
> > I eagerly lookforward to your notes on the 9i stuff and almost anythin
> > u write for that matter most of my friends and me used your book on
> > the 9i new features to clear our Oracle Certification Exams they are
> > quite valauble to us.Beleive me better then most books i have ever
> > come across I would be eagerly looking forward towards your 10G stuff
> > new features guide who knows we might be tempted to write the 10g
> > upgrade too..
> >
> > Ahh yes i think howard you are allowed to spam :-D (i will take care
> > of the bad guys who dont allow you here is there any by the way )
> Are there any bad guys?
> Oh hoh! I can think of one or two. Usually, they threaten to sue if I name
> them, so I won't, but DB and MA and RN might be their initials. Perhaps, but
> I couldn't possibly comment.
> Bad, not because they are morally bad people, or even because they are even
> unpleasant people. I wouldn't know, because I don't know them socially.
> Indeed, I'm almost certain they are perfectly decent people when it comes to
> buying the daily milk or loving their family. But definitely bad in the
> sense of "If you criticise my technical knowledge, I will threaten to resort
> to the law courts, rather than have an open debate with you". That is a
> stifling of intellectual debate akin to the book-burning of 1930s Germany,
> and is "bad", big time.
> Even worse is the tactic, employed by one, which runs like this "If you
> criticise my technical knowledge, I will contact *your employers* and
> threaten *them* with a law suit. See how long you remain employed after
> that". Fortunately, every employer I've heard of subjected to that kind of
> approach says "Get lost, you obvious weirdo". But that the approach is made
> in the first place indicates "badness" of the first order.
> Have a look at the recent index clustering factor thread in this very
> newsgroup. See if you can spot one post where a certain Mike Ault ever
> actually answered me (or Richard Foote... I'm not particularly special in
> this respect) directly. You will find that he found the most unlikely
> insertion points into the thread for his responses. Almost as if he were
> whistling in the wind, oblivious to the circumstances in which he found
> himself, and hoping they (me, Richard) would go away. When someone refuses
> to debate with another who says they're technically incorrect, you know
> you've found a bad'un -in the sense of, 'one who doesn't like to be
> challenged or who thinks it beneath them to justify their opinions'.
> Especially to smart-alecs who can prove a point with inconvenient facts.
> Oracle knowledge is (or should be) a science, not a religious faith, nor a
> leap into the unknown. Yet there are "leading experts" in the Oracle
> community that would prefer an auto-da-fé (especially involving lawyers) to
> engaging in scientific discourse. And in the Oracle Hall of Infamy, it is
> those who will have a place of dishonour, or so I sincerely hope. Quite why
> these Oracle Pharisees should have such a devoted following, I have never
> quite worked out, except in terms of herd-theory. I can only hope people
> begin to realise that there really *are* good and bad ones in the Oracle
> knowledge community, and become more discriminating accordingly.
> All of which is true, but a bit heavy as a response to you: so, changing
> mood very rapidly, thank you for your kind words, and I hope you and your
> friends can bear with me until the 10g stuff is ready for publishing. It
> makes me happy to think that you might have got 9i OCP partly as a result of
> reading the first version of the 9i New Features document. I think the new
> version is better, because there are lots more practical examples for people
> to test and experiment with and learn for themselves, so if that makes more
> happy readers, I'm even more pleased. Someone's already emailed me, saying
> "You're a bit late, aren't you?". To which I can only say, "I'd rather be
> late with insight than early to market with thoughtlessness"
> Best regards,

If conceding the point and declaring the thread closed is being bad, then yes, I guess I qualify. I prefer not to flog a dead horse and get on with other topics myself.

I thought that I had followed method, I had a theory, you had a theory, I defended mine until I could experiment and determine which held more validity and when yours proved more viable, I conceded the point and, did so publicly. Again, if this qualifies me as bad, well so be it.

I personally find it offensive when someone is not gracious in winning a point but must push the other persons face into it repeatidly, not quite cricket as the English would say.

Mike Ault Received on Sun Jun 06 2004 - 10:57:52 CDT

Original text of this message