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: Howard J. Rogers <>
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 19:47:48 +1000
Message-ID: <40c6dcae$0$3038$>

"Igor Laletin" <> wrote in message

> Still when I read your postings a few years ago the first reaction was
> not necessarily 'correct' but sometimes more like various degrees of
> 'rude'. Want you or not, employee's postings in public forums _always_
> reflect on the companies they work for. Especially if a forum is about
> company's products. You were with Oracle and I bet you must have had
> problems at work because of the words you put in. Not what you said
> but how. Now I guess it reflects on Dizwell.

I'll stop you right there.

Oracle Corporation not once, ever, had anything to say about my postings here, except on one occasion, at an annual review, when they said, 'Wow. Keep up the good work'.

Specifically, when I ran into copyright issues, I asked them outright: what about usenet newsgroups? And they said, no problem. That's you and your personal thing, and not our concern.

So you are entitled to your opinion as to whether I am rude or not. What you are not entitled to do is make assumptions about "I bet you had problems at work". Especially when those assumptions are about as wrong as it is possible to be.

> I was back from behind of the firewall a few months ago and was
> surprised to see your style changed for the better. Then I hit this
> thread and also read two more mentioned here. I never read anything
> from Don before so I visited his website and quickly was sick of the
> overtop self-promotion. Nothing's wrong really with the promotion,
> after all he sells his services and must advertise himself, but just a
> bit too much for me. Then I visited yours and chuckled at "one of the
> world's" punch (so much for the guy with distaste for
> "self-proclaimed" experts). I am glad you see it the same way.

Of course I see it the same way. I am consistent about that sort of thing, or at least try to be. Which is why my style has never changed either. I try and tell it like it is. However it is. When people get snotty with me, I get snotty back. And always will.

> Back to the thread. You already published a year ago Mr.Burleson's
> email so people knew what it was like. Is it really necessary to use
> any opportunity to reiterate it?

Yes, because a year ago it was just me. This year, it's someone else. Next year, who knows? As I say, I can only hope it isn't you or someone you actually care about.

>What started as a peaceful ad about
> your new product is now an overemotional off-topic.

Just review the thread again. There is no emotion from me. We have Don threatening to 'pay me a visit'. We have Don accusing me of being a 14 year old girl. When he's not claiming I don't exist at all. We have, on the other hand, me telling him how he can get in touch with my lawyers.

It is all very well to take a laid back approach, but seeing equivalence when there is none...

>And we have three
> more with challenges and "Helllooooooo".

Sorry, you've lost me. Three more challenges? All I've done is tell him how to get in touch with my lawyers (because he said he wanted to but didn't know how to get in touch with me). It won't surprise you, either, to learn that he has not taken up that chance to get in touch.

The "Helloooo" is addressed to Mike Ault. It's not a Don Burleson thing. Mike has at least participated here to the general benefit of all. But he needs to learn how to reply to people, and not just drop bombshells and then do a vanishing act. That is an entirely separate matter, however, from the unprofessional and unethical shenanigans that Don gets up to.

>Rather childish I would say.
> I remember you intended to pick on him every time but the guy hadn't
> even posted until you brought him in. If only he stayed this way.
> In the beginning of it all, in his an year-old email he complained
> about blanket "gibberish" and "fraud" you branded him with, not that
> you proved him wrong.
> He took it as an insult and it seems fair
> enough. Again "how", not "what". Of course some of his answers read
> the same way but is it really an excuse for the language you
> demonstrated back then? I don't remember anything like that from Tom
> Kyte or, say, Jonathan Lewis.

Perhaps because I am not Tom Kyte or Jonathan Lewis? The language they use is theirs. The language I use is mine. It is daft to want commonality on such matters.

Don claims to be one of the World's Leading Oracle Expert. Yet his script was shoddy and had technical errors at its heart. He posted a link to an index document which was technically incorrect, and which he only subsequently admitted was 8 years old. His proof-reading skills are sadly lacking, so that many of his articles barely make coherent sense (the definition of gibberish, by the way, 'incoherent nonsense'. It's pretty accurate as a description of an awful lot of Don's efforts on, for example, DBAZine). I seriously wondered at one point whether Don was mildly dyslexic.

So a leading Oracle expert that doesn't know how to write a workable script or explain correctly how indexes work? For him to claim expertise is, as I put it, "humbug" and "fraud". Note that I didn't say he was ripping off old ladies. Or cheating charities of cash. I said it was fraudulent to claim to be a leading expert based on the quality of the stuff he was pumping out. I stand by that. Why?

fraud / n.
3 a person or thing not fulfilling what is claimed or expected of him, her, or it.

> You're on crusade? Fine. Correct him when he writes wrong. Politely. I
> am dumn sure it would be much better for all, especially for you and
> your career.

\My career is doing just fine, thank you very much. Any threat it faces are from the likes of Don Burleson trying to get at my employers from time to time. Or from people like you making totally speculative and unsubstantiated claims about how much trouble I must have gotten into with my employers because of what I post here.

I admire anyone who attempts to stand back and maintain an air of judicial impartiality. But not if that involves speculating about things you cannot possibly know about. Or excusing threatening behaviour because you see it as morally equivalent to being "rude" or "childish".

HJR Received on Wed Jun 09 2004 - 04:47:48 CDT

Original text of this message