Path: imp.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newsfeeder.syd.optusnet.com.au!news.optusnet.com.au!not-for-mail From: "Howard J. Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server References: <40c17675$0$3035$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <4ef2a838.0406051819.396a9c00@posting.google.com> <40c2995a$0$31676$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> <37fab3ab.0406060757.7f180aaa@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: 9i New Features E-book Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 05:24:57 +1000 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Lines: 52 Message-ID: <40c36f74$0$3036$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.164.5.21 X-Trace: 1086549877 3036 203.164.5.21 Xref: newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com comp.databases.oracle.server:220077 "Mike Ault" wrote in message news:37fab3ab.0406060757.7f180aaa@posting.google.com... > Howard, > > If conceding the point and declaring the thread closed is being bad, > then yes, I guess I qualify. I prefer not to flog a dead horse and get > on with other topics myself. The topic *is* closed. Read my post again. I wasn't criticising you for holding any opinion on clustering factor whatsoever. I was criticising the fact that you never once replied to a post of mine or Richard's in that thread, except right at the end to declare the thread closed. Your substantive replies were always made to others. The post where you acknowledged your clustering_factor ideas were wrong was made in reply to Noons... and with all respect to Noons, he had not exactly been making much of the running in that thread on the point. I was, in short, commenting on the clear distaste for debate you appeared to exhibit, not on the nature of that debate itself. > I thought that I had followed method, I had a theory, you had a > theory, I defended mine until I could experiment and determine which > held more validity and when yours proved more viable, I conceded the > point and, did so publicly. Again, if this qualifies me as bad, well > so be it. No, that's just a wilful misreading of my post. Quote: "in the sense of, 'one who doesn't like to be challenged or who thinks it beneath them to justify their opinions'". The quality of those opinions is not the issue. Nor the fact that you conceded anything. That you couldn't deign to hold a debate with Richard or myself directly... *that* is the issue. > I personally find it offensive when someone is not gracious in winning > a point but must push the other persons face into it repeatidly, not > quite cricket as the English would say. Well, English wouldn't say it, because this has nothing to do with rubbing your face in it. The technical merit of your opinions, or your willingness to concede they were wrong, has nothing to do with what I was writing about, as is obvious from the words I used. The point was how you replied in that thread. Not what you replied with. HJR > > Mike Ault