Re: clustering and high availability?

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 10:52:26 +1000
Message-ID: <40cba532$0$11525$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:1087085200.780169_at_yasure...
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
> > "Serge Rielau" <srielau_at_ca.eye-be-em.com> wrote in message
> > news:cae3vv$5gb$1_at_hanover.torolab.ibm.com...
> >
> >>Nothing to add from my side. Howard, you're dead on what I meant.
> >>
> >>Cheers
> >>Serge
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks, Serge.
> >
> > Now, if only Daniel would retract the suggestion I was merely trying to
> > provoke an argument or indulging in word-games, and acknowledge the
> > substantive point too, I'd be happy.
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
>
> Make you happy. Let me think about it. Oh Ok. But only if you agree to
> play nice with others for at least 15 minutes.

That, unfortunately, is an Aultish retraction, done through gritted teeth: since when does acknowledging a technical fact depend on my, or anyone else's, behaviour? Why can't you just say, without the smart comments and the reservation they imply, "I was wrong to suggest that; I see the point you were making; and upon reflection, I agree with it"?

I guess that's between you and your conscience, and so there is no compelling need for you to explain.
Regards
HJR Received on Sat Jun 12 2004 - 19:52:26 CDT