Re: some thoughts on OOW 2007

On Nov 20, 6:21 pm, Noons <wizofo..._at_yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Nov 21, 1:15 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
>
> > For someone that did not sit in on the briefing, and take part in the
> > discussion, you really come off as being the poster child for "sour
> > attitude."
>
> I'm sorry: you mentioned Mary Ann's blog as an argument for
> attending her presentation, to which I responded. Now you jump to a
> briefing? So what is it, Daniel? The blog, OOW, a briefing, or what?
> Perhaps voices next? Does it even strike you that you're making
> no sense whatsoever?
>
> Does it even register with you that I don't give a rat's arse
> about arguments involving the word "sour" and other such
> childish insinuations? They only demonstrate the paltry
> level of argumentation being used...
>
> > The discussion in Moscone West was highly technical and so far from
> > market-speak that, quite frankly, you should apologize.
>
> Apologise for what? Mary Ann calling in her blog every IT
> professional
> a perpetrator of conflict of interest? Are you totally insane?
> Or perhaps for not being awestruck or gobsmacked by marketing
> presentations at OOW? I prefer to leave that to the sycophants
> and their blogs. So: no apologies, I'm afraid.
>
> > Ms. Davidson
> > is more than capable of talking about the intricacies of security at a
> > level that, I've little doubt, you would find technically challenging:
> > And does.
>
> I don't find insinuations of conflict of interest for an entire
> industry
> as particularly technically challenging. Must be it's just me,
> because you seem to be in awe? Perhaps it's the norm in
> your circles?
>
> And given Oracle's well known and demonstrated paltry record
> on security issues, I think you should stop that line of argument
> right there.
>
> > There is great value in being a cynic as you are so often proven
> > correct. The risk is that commenting upon things of which you know
> > nothing leaves you open to putting your foot into your mouth as you
> > just did.
>
> Actully, as I just demonstrated the only one not making
> sense is you, Daniel.
> I said very clearly that I find it ironic when anyone from Oracle -
> marketing
> or otherwise is totally irrelevant - claims conflict of interest as an
> IT
> industry problem, when you mentioned that blog as an argument
> for attending oow prezzies.
>
> If you can't understand that ANY manufacturer will have
> a conflict of interest in pushing their technology, then fine.
> But spare me the "blinkenlights" discourse.
>
> Last time I looked, no one died and promoted Oracle
> managers to deity: whatever they might say in a blog
> or anywhere else, is open to challenge and scrutiny.
>
> Never forget that, before you start the "now you listen,
> minion!" nonsense with me.

Most of the postings that he makes here have signature's longer than the content. Yet he wants to call other posters on cdos spammers. Yikes.

I wish that I could say that I was happy with the security based cpu patches but that's far from the current reality. If the person being discussed is responsible for the current mess in that area well there's some obvious conclusions. Received on Tue Nov 20 2007 - 19:05:11 CST