"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message
news:41a04e2b$0$27991$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> DA Morgan wrote:
> > Howard J. Rogers wrote:
> >
> >> DA Morgan wrote:
> >>
> >>> Praveen wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Means, there should not be any
> >>>> downtime in any of the locations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Praveen
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> DataGuard addresses replication to a remote location but does nothing
> >>> with respect to high-availability.
> >>
> >>
> >> That is either ill-defined vagueness or just rubbish.
> >
> >
> > Enough Howard. As your IQ is higher than room temperature you know
> > perfectly well what I intended to communicate.
>
> OK. So were you communicating that Data Guard was not a high
> availability solution or not? If you were, you were wrong.
>
> > This is the third post
> > in a row where you have squirted testosterone all over my monitor
>
> You mistake testosterone for 'finally having had enough with the
> complete drivel you spout without basic research'.
>
> > and
> > I have far better things to do with my time than engage in school-yard
> > games.
>
> And that makes you *so* mature, of course!
>
> I don't care whether you think it's a game, or testosterone, or any
> other form of words you care to concoct to deflect attention away from
> the actual fact here: you made a statement about Data Guard which is,
> prima facie, nonsense. You went on to say how if you want High
> Availability you must "without question" choose RAC... another statement
> that is prima facie wrong.
>
> All you have to do to eliminate the "testosterone" is to say what you
> mean to say and stop making the sweeping generalisations which are your
> hallmark. If you only slowed down a little, and stopped posting your
> daily double dozen one-liner put-downs, maybe you'd find that rather
> easy to do.
>
> Meanwhile, you keep posting it, and I'll keep calling you on it.
>
> HJR
Peace brothers ;-)
Received on Sun Nov 21 2004 - 12:36:58 CST
