Re: 9i New Features E-book

Comments embedded.

"Don Burleson" <don_at_burleson.cc> wrote in message news:998d28f7.0406060739.4c2068bd_at_posting.google.com...
> > Just so you know ... in the United States freedom of speech protects
> > you if you express a personal opinion about someone in a public forum
> > provided your statement is not an incitement to violence or a
> > reference to criminal behavior.
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> As they say, the 1st Ammendment does not allow you to scream "fire" in
> a crowded theater.

Wrong again Don. You're wrong yet again. You are most certainly allowed to scream fire if the crowded theatre happens to be on fire !! In fact, many would consider it the right thing to do. Now if the theatre manger were to be upset about his reputation because having a theatre on fire might not be viewed positively by theatre patrons, well that's too bad. The greater welfare of the theatre patrons would still make calling out that the theatre is on fire the right thing to do. This is the point you miss again and again and again....

If having an unsafe theatre weren't bad enough, can you imagine how ridiculous it would be if the theatre manager were to then threaten to sue an organisation that the "fire" caller performed work for ? Instead of being credited for helping out, not least helping out the poor theatre manager, the poor bugger gets threatened. Actually Don, I think you can imagine that scenario very well ..

>You are quite correct about personal opinion, but
> this protection does not extend to statemenmts of fact. here is a
> great link on the subject:
>
> http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/part7.htm
>
> FYI, this is the standard for Libel and Defamation in the USA:
>
> . The statements are false;
> . The statements "were made maliciously and intentionally with full
> knowledge of their falsity or in complete and reckless disregard of
> their truth or falsity, for the purpose of injuring and destroying a
> personal and professional reputation";
> . The Defendant "acted with actual malice."
>

But if the statements are in fact true, if the statements actually rectify and clear up mistakes made by "others", if the intent is not to be malicious but to try and spread technical correctness rather than errors and myths, to save the lives of the poor buggers caught up in the fire at the theatre, then who is right Don, both legally and morally ?

>
> Let's say, for example, that someone were to publish the following
> about you, using their podium as an Oracle "expert" and status as an
> employee of Oracle Corporation. In additiona to publishing the
> statements below, assume that they e-mailed the statements to your
> clients, business associates and employers:

Don, this is hypocrisy at its most cynical. This is exactly the type of behaviour *you* have conducted against me by threatening expensive legal proceedings against an organisation I contract to. Why ? Because I have the audacity to disagree with you Don and because of my Index presentation (www.actoug.org.au/Downloads/oracle_index_internals.pdf) where I quote you dear Don on two statements in relation to indexes that are common myths and *technically incorrect*. Theatres that are bellowing smoke so to speak. The fact that you made these statements and that I prove them wrong in the presentation is of no consequence eh Don ? The fact that the presentation had obviously nothing whatsoever to do with this organisation didn't stop you threatening them eh Don ? It of course opens up the question of your "intent" in sending out your threatening email, a point that is of some interest to us. Thankfully, they're dealing with the matter in the manner that it deserves and have subsequently offered me an extension to my contract, so I guess I should thank you.

However the fact that this is your way of debating technical issues is a very sad reflection on how you deal with people who disagree with your opinions, especially for someone who *self* proclaims to be an "Oracle Guru" . If you promote yourself as being an Oracle authority that should be listened to, then the Oracle community has every right to expect an appropriate level of technical quality in your writings. And when someone, anyone, highlights errors in your writings, you need to be big enough and decent enough to accept such feedback responsibly. Because spreading technical inaccuracies benefits no one, not least this "professional reputation" of yours...

>
> "Daniel Morgan peddles non- and misleading information . . . It
> is, frankly, a disgrace, and I make no apologies whatsoever for
> calling it tough."
>
> "be warned about Daniel Morgan, because his advice is frequently
> technically complete gibberish."
>
> "I'll just keep quietly pointing out what a fraud Daniel Morgan is
> anytime he pops up here."
>
> As you can see, these are NOT personal opinions; they are statements
> of fact, they are false, and by their tone, designed to assault your
> professional reputation.
>

Don, for a self proclaimed Oracle guru, you have a nasty habit of making very basic technical mistakes. The last time you posted here, you openly admitted to employing Mike Ault based on his recent postings, postings which even he latter admitted were totally and utterly wrong. Do you fully realise just how silly that made you look Don ? Don, you're the one who's assaulting your "professional reputation", you, nobody could do any better than what you're doing yourself.

If you build a "theatre that's on fire" then I have no problem in shouting "fire", explaining why in the process. If you disagree, it would be a pleasant change to debate why openly, rather than issuing legal threats whilst often quietly amending the highlighted mistakes in the background, with absolutely no subsequent acknowledgments.

Would you like me to mention them all Don, would you like me to go through them all ?

IMHO, a "real" Oracle guru (such as Steve Adams, Jonathan Lewis, Tom Kyte, Cary Millsap to name but a few) are technically brilliant with regard to their knowledge of Oracle, display an air of dignity and respect when sharing their knowledge with others and openly acknowledge errors and mistakes.

All attributes you appear to sadly lack Don .

>
> BTW, English Common Law is totally different than USA law. In the
> USA, the defandant must prove that their statements are true. In Oz
> and the UK, the defandant is put on-trial, to prove that the
> statements are false.
>
> Remember, the Brits have no First Ammendment rights. That's why the
> British tabloids are free to publish all kinds of falsehoods as if
> they were fact, without fear of retribution from those they damage.

Ummm, wrong again Don, wrong again ...

Instead of posting this nonsense Don, why not do everyone a favour, not least yourself, and post something related to Oracle that is relevant, technical, interesting and above all *accurate*.

One can but hope .

Richard Received on Mon Jun 07 2004 - 05:02:15 CDT