Re: Finding full-table scans?

"Howard J. Rogers" wrote:

> > Hi Howard,
> >
> > Howard my friend, you've made mistakes here, I know I have, hell everyone
> > has.
>
> True enough. Big whopping mistakes, too, at times.
>
> I can't recall ever passing on (inaccurate) 8-year old information without
> so much as blinking, though.
>
> >
> > So how about lightening up on Don (he didn't park next to you one day and
> > scratch your car did he) ?
>
> Oh, I probably would if he wasn't such a dreadful self-publicist (and
> technically inaccurate to boot). Or if he ever once admitted that his
> knowledge of how indexes behave is, er, 'deficient'.
>
> On the other hand, this arrived in my inbox today:
>
> -------------
> Mr. Rogers,
>
> You published: "The advice is: be warned about Burleson, because his advice
> is frequently technically complete gibberish." You have also published that
> I am a fraud in a public forum.
>
> In the USA (and in Australia, according to my attorney) this is libel, and
> anyone who publishes a false statement is liable to pay damages to the
> wronged party.
>
> If you think that I am going to sit by while you publish material to smear
> me, you are quite wrong.
>
> This is notice that you are to retract your false and malicious statements.
>
> I hope that it will not be necessary to pursue legal action against you, but
> make no mistake, I have the resolve to defend myself.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Donald K. Burleson
> --------------
>
> I reckon I must be doing something right when plonkers around the globe
> decide a bit of 'intimidation by mentioning my attorney' is in order.
>
> So I'll pass on being nice about Don. The technical, and other, accuracy of
> his output in toto doesn't warrant it.
>
> Regards
> HJR
My goodness it is getting a best testy out there.

Burlseson is either bluffing or his attorney is taking him for a few thousand dollars as to collect damages on such a complaint in a US court would require proving damages. And it is almost impossible to prove financial damages in almost all situations. To claim damages from a message posted in a usenet group from another country would be as close to impossible as one can get without angering the gods.

I'll support statements of fact no matter how painful to their recipient (even when I am that recipient). But I think it is time we drew a hard and fast line at c.d.o. against abusive and obscene language. One can challenge someone's statements on a factual basis without resorting to language best reserved for 13 year olds and comedy clubs.

Daniel Morgan Received on Sun Apr 06 2003 - 16:33:44 CDT