Re: DDL

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:33:52 -0800
Message-ID: <1101180743.624903@yasure>

David Fitzjarrell wrote:

> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<41a05509$0$31870$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
>

>>DA Morgan wrote:
>>
>>>David Fitzjarrell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Carelessness in responding means, to me, basically 'shooting from the 
>>>>hip', which I
>>>>did not do.  I'm sorry, Howard, if you firmly feel as though I did.
>>>>
>>>>David Fitzjarrell
>>>
>>>
>>>Howard appears to be on one of his rampages where he feels it necessary
>>>to "BE RIGHT". 
>>
>>Appearances are deceptive Daniel. If only you would look at the reality, 
>>instead of appearances, we might get somewhere.
>>
>>
>>>My read of what you wrote was hardly anything that
>>>requires an apology. 
>>
>>I didn't ask David for an apology. I was actually hoping David would 
>>share with me what he thought Richard's interpretation was in a one-line 
>>re-phrase of the question, since he seemed to see both interpretations.
>>
>>
>>>Though some seem to only be satisfied when they
>>>extract one: And I grow weary of the game.
>>
>>I didn't seek to extract an apology. Though anyone who has assumed the 
>>OP can't speak "proper" English probably owes the OP one.
>>
>>HJR

>
>
> Now that you are clear regarding what it is you want, I shall provide:
>
> Original question: "Why is DDL required to be the last statement in a
> transaction?"
>
> Interpretation: "Why must I conclude a transaction with DDL?"
>
> Nothing in the original question, posted verbatim above, mentions any
> DDL the OP has written; the inherent meaning and frame of reference
> is, therefore, open to interpretation. Had the OP written: "Why must
> I put my DDL statements at the end of a transaction?" there would be
> no ambiguity, and but one interpretation.
>
> I hope this satisfies your thirst for my interpretation of the
> original question.
>
> David Fitzjarrell

<RANT>
Au contraire. The OP's post is only open to a single interpretation: Howards. The rest of us are shallow vapid beings that exist in a barely tolerated netherworld. Every once in awhile, perhaps by pure chance, we get something correct.

I hope you find this as empowering as I have. ;-) </RANT>

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
University of Washington
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with 'u' to respond)

Received on Mon Nov 22 2004 - 21:33:52 CST