Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading

Mladen:

"Serious Misleading" - No! It was a draft article and it clearly stated
so! Misleading would be if I had claimed it was a finished article that worked against the production release of FC5. I did not!

"The author should have retracted it by now." - It's a draft. Why
should I retract a draft article. It does not, and never did, claim to be anything it is not.

"still hasn't done so" - Are you yanking my chain? I'll give you a time
line:

1. I write the "draft" article ages ago!
2. I get a comment from Bart at "2006-03-28 20:06:52".
3. I get a comment from you at "2006-03-29 04:19:46".
4. I check my mail this morning and see both comments for th first time.
5. I waste time replying to your pointless belly aching because you guys don't have the presence of mind to understand the phrase "THIS IS A DRAFT DOCUMENT" means something different to "This is a complete and fully functional example".
6. I add some stronger comments to the start of the document!

Perhaps I should add a draft point (7):

7) "Draft": I actually download the final release of FC5 and test my
"draft" articles. By the way, there are two of them. Perhaps you need
to start a thread complaining about the second one also!

It is still less that 24 hours since the original comment was made and I've made my response. I think this is pretty darn quick.

Perhaps you guys should think twice before yo start criticising other people. In my opinion, the way you've handled this issue is completely unreasonable.

Get a life!

Tim... Received on Wed Mar 29 2006 - 04:54:58 CST