Re: looks like dizwell.com is back online
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 19:53:23 -0700 (PDT)
On Apr 10, 1:36 am, gazzag <gar..._at_jamms.org> wrote:
> On 9 Apr, 15:45, hpuxrac <johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > I guess we all thought it was probably just a matter of time.
> > So far the theme apparently is wallabies and IT but well oracle is
> > mentioned also at least in passing for whatever it is worth. Plus a
> > shot at the blog tagging thingie whatever that was.
> > C'est la vie toujours la plus ca change ...
> Again? How refreshing. ;-)
Yawn. I see nothing much has changed amongst the Oracle illitterati: they still can't get their facts right.
Dizwell has *always* been online. Nothing has changed in that respect. The fact that you weren't able to log in to access its content doesn't mean it wasn't online for those of us that had the requisite security clearances.
Dizwell was, of course, password protected because I didn't want people accessing my material, but it turns out that, with Wordpress, you can mark individual articles as "private" and leave others as "public" and thus achieve "differential access" to articles without the need for a site-wide password. I plead guilty to not having used Wordpress since 2004 and thus not knowing this fact before.
But now that I am aware of this fact, it is evident that the global password protection turns out to be unnecessary and instead, I've just marked 389 technical articles about Oracle as 'private'.
So yeah, the specific form of the 'article protection' mechanism has changed, but that's about it. You (one) still can't access my technical material about Oracle... which means, fundamentally, nothing has changed. Google is still prohibited from indexing my site. The wayback machine will still not be able to show you my old material. I still won't answer technical queries about anything related to Oracle. I still have given back my 'ACE', and I still won't participate in OTN forums or anything else that purports to be an 'Oracle community' endeavour by way of providing technical advice. Which is why I will only post something here when people like you post stuff like this that is need of correct and my attention is drawn to the fact.
Whilst I can't stop your silly insinuations that you only had to wait long enough and my site, with all its material, would be back in business, the fact is, the suggestion is demonstrably false. Indeed, the tenor of both your comments is one factor in making it certain that it will *remain* demonstrably false: I predicted some in the 'oracle community' would react this way. You two have entirely lived down to my expectations.
In case the posting on March 31st wasn't clear enough, I invite all members of the "oracle community" to steet a wide berth around the Dizwell site. It contains (and will contain) hardly anything they and their ilk will find of interest but is intended solely for me and my fallible memory and my family and friends who'd quite like to know how the wallabies are getting on. Received on Wed Apr 09 2008 - 21:53:23 CDT