Re: can someone please explain what this blog tagging this is all about?

From: <>
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:52:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Jan 17, 10:36 am, hpuxrac <> wrote:
> On Jan 16, 3:33 pm, wrote:
> snip
> > > If you don't care to explain that's fine but don't guess that everyone
> > > is out to get you or isn't potentially sympathetic.
> > Come on. I've explained very clearly the actions of others which
> > caused this. I'm not naming specific names (apart from Jake who
> > started it all and Tim Hall who made a special point of telling people
> > to tag away because "it's fun"), for obvious reasons: there are too
> > many of them.
> I seem to recall some past bad blood between you and Tim Hall. No I
> don't understand the beginning or middle just that you have decided to
> take your website offline.

I don't recall past blood between Tim Hall and myself. I find his choice of North Harlem-ese as his dialect of choice most peculiar, and he can't write very well. And yes, he asked me to review one of his books, and when I did so I happened to express the sentiment that he'd done a bad redaction job of the official Oracle documentation. But he seemed to take that in good part, it was over a year ago, and whether I find someone's decision to liberally sprinkle their observations of the latest kung fu movie with non-adjectives such as 'cool' and 'awesome' weird or not doesn't mean there's "bad blood".

Tim Hall actually tagged me in the "game", and I doubt he would have done that if he and I were at each others' throats. He was also one of the 4 (or 5) I contacted to ask if they wouldn't mind contacting their tags asking them not to propogate further. I wouldn't have done that if I'd judged ahead of time that he was a lost cause or a hopeless case.

> It's not exactly the first or second or third time ( fourth maybe who
> knows ? ) that all the content was removed from a website that you
> operated. Usually the reason in the past was new software.

The site has been removed in the past because as an employee of Oracle Corporation they claimed copyright on everything I wrote. Once I left, a new site was created, using static HTML pages. That proved unmanageable, so I moved to Joomla. That proved to require so many security patches that it was a management nightmare. So I moved to Drupal. That proved to be so draining of computer resources that I was kicked off by my host. I moved the site to three other hosts of varying degrees of incompetence before Pythian valiantly stepped up to the mark and offered me free hosting with a machine all to myself so I could consume as many computer resources as I liked. Unfortunately, the network speed from Pythian was extremely slow, and I decided at New Year to move to a paid-for host with very good network connectivity.

And that's the complete history of Dizwell. Some of it is my incompetence. Some of it is to do with performance. Some of it is to do with ease of management (upgrades, patches etc). Not one move or outage has ever been occasioned by "annoyance".

> There seems to be a different reason this time based on what you are
> saying.

Well, yes, I rather thought that was the point of having posted several thousand words to this thread.

> > I've explained why I found those actions unacceptable. I've explained
> > why my decision to remove the site arises directly from me finding
> > those actions unnaceptable. I have also explained the financial
> > implications very, very clearly.
> ???
> > If you don't care to read any of that, that's fine. If you don't agree
> > with my reasoning, that's fine. But please don't try to suggest I've
> > not presented all the facts and thought processes at all!
> Where exactly is one supposed to find your explanation? Is there a
> url?

I can't quite work out whether you're just trying to wind me up or not. I'll generously assume you're not for the moment, and therefore answer you: look around you. This thread is that explanation. Detailed and as factual as I know how to make it.

But in case you missed it the first time:

Chain letters were sent; disruption was caused; I asked some people to consider discouraging others from participating; I posted a blog piece trying to discourage people from participating; I was abused for my presumption; the disruption continued; sections of the Oracle 'community' regard the disruption caused as trivial or nothing to get concerned about. I do not want to be part of a community that thinks chain letters are "fun", disruption caused to a web site doesn't count if you don't happen to visit it, vandalism is in the eye of the beholder and 'if you don't like it, get over it'. Not wanting to be part of a community means I withdraw my work from that community.

You posted originally, "Any of the background info related to what is going on and why people might be taking websites and content offline would be appreciated."

I've given you the background. The "why" is (short version) 'because the behaviour of people in the community has been appalling'. Hopefully, you are now appreciative.

> > Meanwhile, what I don't think people really understand is that I don't
> > **care** if people are sympathetic or not or out to get me or not. I
> > withdraw from the community and what the community then thinks about
> > me is a matter of complete indifference.
> I think the idea of an "oracle community" is very much oversold. Just
> lots of people trying to stay employed basically. Look at the self
> promotion that many of the cdos posters engage in.

I am inclined to agree with you, particularly since what has happened. I would have hoped for 'commonality of interests' also equating to 'rough commonality of values', and if that had been the case, there would be something approaching a "community". But I do now realise that does not seem to be the case.

But again, at this point we're getting all philosophical and that's not something I want to do, particularly.

Unless there is anything else to ask, I have nothing to add to this thread. Perhaps you'd better email me if you want further enlightenment. I wouldn't want to be accused of participating in the community by posting here too much, after all! Received on Wed Jan 16 2008 - 18:52:23 CST

Original text of this message