Re: Help required - URGENT PLS

From: joel garry <>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:16:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Jan 14, 5:44 am, Charles Hooper <> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 8:32 pm, Noons <> wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 12:05 am, Noons <> wrote:
> > > Charles Hooper wrote,on my timestamp of 12/01/2009 1:50 AM:
> > > > Noons, congratulations, you made the news:
> > > >
> > > > Good to see that there is an alternative for Metalink, I wonder if
> > > > they provide Oracle patches also.  :-)
> > > And of course in good Burleson form, the quote is false and incorrect.  Nothing
> > > like the "precise" and "scientific" approach of his entire organisation to
> > > replace Oracle support!
> > > LOL!
> > Ah, I see he's now changed his statement to what I really said. Of
> > course, still incomplete, but let's not dwell on that little detail.
> > At least he reads his email and acts on (some) complaints, God bless
> > his soul.
> [humor on, trying to make sense of the news article]
> Since you were unhappy with the speed at which Oracle support provided
> emergency patches to you for your "stable systems", thus causing you
> to drop your Oracle support contract in favor of a third party Oracle
> support provider, such as Burleson Consulting, residing in your home
> country so as to avoid the problems with "foreign remote DBA
> providers" highlighted on that page, have you noticed that the rate at
> which emergency patches are provided to you has improved considering
> that, from that page "only Oracle can provide patches and software
> upgrades".
> [/humor on, trying to make sense of the news article]
> I sense some problems, or possible contradictions, drawn from your
> quote being included on that page, in the context of the other
> information on that page.  It seems that the majority of the quotes on
> that page are possibly out of context for what the page was originally
> attempting to accomplish.  The inclusion of the quotes on that page
> seems to indicate that those individuals being quoted have cancelled
> their Oracle support contracts in order to save thousands of dollars a
> year by using a 3rd party remote DBA service.
> Is it the case that I just misunderstood the intent of news article?

Well, remember, this is marketing fluff, which is even less useful than ratio tuning for the reader. The purpose is to make possible customers think experienced people cancel their Oracle support and use BC. A variant of appeal to authority, but much slimier in intent for readers looking for technical help. Really stretching the meaing of "news." Being fluff, it not only doesn't have to make sense, but has to mislead without appearing to mislead, creating a desire for to purchase something to solve a perceived problem. People don't remember all the details, just the sense and some details that support it (I should say "most people," since of course many DBA's are used to looking at details of traces and what-all, but then again, they're people and can be led by this stuff too). There's really nothing wrong with it as long as it doesn't deceive, though some people quoted might be upset if they don't want to be used in this way, and it can backfire when people read it with a critical eye or bias against DKB. Some people might want tighter ethical standards regarding this sort of thing. Examples of similar issues may be found in advertising for lawyers and real estate. When technical consulting gets as regulated as those industries, well, you can get the idea that this "news article" could look pretty much the same.


-- is bogus.
Nobody likes me, everybody hates me, guess I'll go eat worms.
Received on Wed Jan 14 2009 - 11:16:29 CST

Original text of this message