Re: DDL

DA Morgan wrote:
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
>>> I hate to continue to drag this out Howard but why not just acknowledge
>>> that Richard is correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> About what, Daniel?
>
>
> I know this suggestion will make you uncomfortable and likely earn me
> another poke in the eye with a sharp stick ... but we are talking about
> Richard Foote ... not Don Burleson or someone from TUSC.

We're actually talking about answering questions accurately and properly. The first step in which is to understand the question properly. I realise this might be a rather tricky concept for you to grasp.

> You can just
> say "Thank you Richard" just as I posted a thank you to you for
> correcting me.

Richard I'm sure is big enough to cope without my thanking him for poinring out that I don't need to terminate an 'update emp' statement with an 'alter table' one.

> You don't have to always be right.

This has nothing to do with me being right or wrong. I believe on the balance of probabilities that my interpretation of the question this time happens to be the correct one, but that's incidental. What I object to by this stage in the thread is your usual fatuous contributions. They're utterly unnecessary and contribute zilch.

> And you don't have to
> always get your back up on every issue.

I don't. Just with your patronisiing, arrogant emptiness.

I am told by an email correspondent who has met you that you are 'quite smart'. All I can say is that 90% of your posts don't exhibit it.

> This is Oracle not a religion.

Another statement of the bleedin' obvious.

> Not once have you ever in this group, to the best of my oft faulty
> memory, acknowledged a mistake or an error in anything.

Really? For someone who claimed to have created a database without a system rollback segment, and who took a whole YEAR before admitting that was complete crap, you are skating on extremely thin ice.

Try visiting Google Groups, doing an advanced search for comp.databases.oracle.server, author Howard J. Rogers and including the words "my mistake". I get 98 hits. What do you get?

I've said it before, to Don amongst others. Now I say it to you: don't make statements which are demonstrably wrong. It makes you look a complete prat. And "to the best of my memory" is a feeble defence when you could have visited Google and found out for certain.

> This might be a
> good time to start. Richard was correct. Really. He was. Honest.

Daniel, you're a condescending fool to most people who post here. Don't try it on me. You have just spent the past few days posting to a thread elsewhere about a feature of 9i you didn't even knew existed... a feature which had been mentioned many times... and yet you hadn't even noticed.

In yet another thread, you spout crap about Data Guard not being a high availability solution, and how RAC is "without question" the right such solution.

In short, you trivialise. You condescend. You don't bother to research. And you are wrong more often than not.

Well, I for one think there ought to be a question in this particular thread about what the original question meant. That you pre-suppose that there can be no question about it is entirely in your character. But it's incorrect.

>At
> least in this correspondents opinion.

Which opinion happens to be worth squat diddly. So take it elsewhere.

HJR Received on Sun Nov 21 2004 - 02:07:03 CST