Re: Why is "shutdown abort", then backup bad

Comments embedded.
bbulsara23_at_hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > So does the charter of this newsgroup, a document apparently you
> > haven't read. It can be found here:
> >
> > http://members.cox.net/oracleu nix/ORACLECH.HTM
> >
> > and it prohibits sales and marketing posts as there is a suitable
> > newsgroup for such advertisements. Re-read every post to which Daniel
> > Morgan has objected; you'll find them all to be spam, i.e. marketing
> > and sales related posts. Attempting to enforce the charter is far
> > different from attempting to impose ones own sensibilities upon a
> > newsgroup without consensus.
>
> So what are you saying. Daniel is allowed to be rude because he is
> attempting to enforce a bit of the charter? Silly argument. My argument
> is no one should be allowed to get away with being rude, whether is is
> written in the charter or not! Mladen Gogala was rude, he wrote RTFM.
>

Youe poor vocabulary has no bearing on what Mladen Gogola authored. Many people take RTFM as "Read The Fine Manual", not "Read The <expletive deleted> Maunal", so it appears your complaint lies with *your* interpretation of the acronym, not in the acronoym itself. I should not be surprised by this as you've repeatedly displayed weak vocabulary and spelling skills in this thread, weak enough to allow you to lapse into vulgarity when, in many minds, none exists.

> I have read the charter. But posting to usenet has acceptable behaviour
> not defined there too. For example, read the section titled
> "Netiquette" here.
>
> http://people.netscape.com/sfraser/mtnw/docs/Usenet.html
>
> There are many points described in netiquette. Writing RTFM fits many
> of the unacceptable categories. You have defended Daniel Morgan for
> asking posters to apologize for posting to c.d.o rather than c.d.m but
> you cannot defend him on all his offensive behaviour on other counts.
> This is a little selective.

The only 'selectivity' displayed in this thread is by you. Tell me where I have attempted to defend Daniel Morgan for anything except his attempts at policing spam. Show me where, in one of Daniel's more 'offensive' threads I've cheered him on, supporting his behaviour as though I were a cheerleader. Your comments on Daniel were based upon his demanding apologies, nothing more. Now you include his entire catalog of usenet responses, again in an attempt to deflect attention from you. Who, between the two of us, is now being selective?

> Reading the netiquette link above for
> example it says:
>
> * Don't threaten, abuse, or slander people.
> * Try to be nice to each other. Feel free to be critical, but be polite
> * Try to avoid posting flames or participating in flame wars.
> * When being sarcastic, if there's any danger of misinterpretation, use
> a smiley.
>
> And don't say Daniel doesn't slander other people, he does! And don't
> say Daniel is nice to other people, he generally isn't!
>

Please point me to my specific text where I defended Daniel in ALL of his posts, mot simply those demanding an apology to the group for inappropriate spamming. You can't, but you still insist upon clouding the issue with facts not in evidence in a vain attempt to justify your own rudeness.

>
> Lastly, this Winnie the Pooh Mary Poppins thing. I include the entire
> paragraph so as to not be accused again of "'judicious' snipping of
> posts to justify your point".
>
> > Were Mary Poppins to suddenly become an Oracle Certified DBA and submit
> > posts to this newsgroup you'd likely find fault with her delivery, as
> > well, as it doesn't match your own.
>
> This is another unfounded statement from you. I have made ONE comment
> about Mladen Gogala writing RTFM and from this you can extrapolate that
> I would find fault in everyones postings, including apparently Mary
> Poppins. I have been unfairly challenged for "attempting to moderate"
> this group by asking Mladen to not post RTFM.

Such is not what you asked; you ASKED for nothing. You DEMANDED a change in tone for the posts herein by presuming to speak for all concerned, without first building a consensus of opinion in your favor.  Again I'll post EXACTLY that which you have written:

"This tone is not wanted in this newsgroup, from anyone. This includes you Mladen Gogala."

Apparently your knowledge of English grammar leads you to believe you've *requested* a change in posting behaviour. This reads otherwise, as others will also attest. Stop trying to re-write your post to conform with your 'minds-eye' view of the situation. You rudely admonished Mladen Gogola when you have been given no such authority. Such is the purview of a moderator, a position not available in this newsgroup yet one you feel compelled to assume. That you are the only one in this thread arguing against that perception, possibly you need to adjust your thinking to coincide with that of the majority. Of course such an adjustment may be difficult for you to enact, as you obviously believe you already speak for the majority, even with the wealth of proof to the contrary found in this thread.

> I can support the
> "unfair" claim by your (and others) defence of repeat "moderate" and
> "slander" offenders Daniel Morgan and others. So in summary, I object
> to what Mladen Gogala has written and that is about all you can
> conclude.

Obviously you fail to understand your own words:

"This tone is not wanted in this newsgroup, from anyone. This includes you Mladen Gogala."

Such verbiage is indicative of attempted censorship, a task borne on the shoulders of a moderator. It is not a simple "I find your post offensive" remark, and bears no resemblance to any post of that type. That you choose to revise your post by chameleonic definition to fit your current vision of the situation clearly indicates, again, how you fail to take responsiblity for your statements. You are an adult, and as such you should take ownership of your words, deeds and actions, just as you expect everyone else in this newsgroup to do the same. Yet it appears this is a one-sided argument, where you're invariably correct and all others are hopelessly, incurably wrong. Methinks you are on the wrong side of the mirror. Give Alice my best the next time you see her.

> And this is my opinion but I still believe Mladen shouldn't
> tar himself with the same brush of Sybrand Bakker and Daniel Morgan.

The only 'tar' dispenseed in this thread has come from your 'bucket', and you've seaen fit to cover just about everyone in the newsgroup. Unfortunately you cannot understand your initial response is far more rude than anything any other poster has contributed save our 'friend' Amjad Daoud. Brusque responses to questions so often asked or so easily answered by the documentation will occur, and there is nothing you can do to stop such posts. Mladen supplied, in my mind and in the minds of many others, a response in harmony with the nature of the request and the apparent laziness of the poster. The answer to the original question is found in the Oracle Documentation, on numerous websites, in several FAQ lists and in numerous white papers, all available through a Google search. Asking here, after repeatedly performing the questionable act oblivious to its obvious problems, clearly indicates a lack of initiative on the part of the original poster. Laziness is not a virtue, it is a liability, and, as such, it is not supported here, in comp.databases.oracle.server. It is truly sad you cannot recognise the tenor of the thread prior to your involvement in it. It has been said before, and I shall state it again, your post was *RUDE*, in both your tone and in your assumption of speaking the collective mind of all who post here. Should you want to ASK someone to not use language you find offensive then do so. Writing this:

"Please refrain from using RTFM in your posts as many may find the term offensive and vulgar."

if that is the sentiment you intended to put forth will be received far more favorably than using this:

"This tone is not wanted in this newsgroup, from anyone. This includes you Mladen Gogala."

Note how, in the first example, the possibly offensive text is reported and a desirable act is suggested. Note also the first example indicates this is an opinion. Note in the second example no such correlation exists; it is a blanket statement made absent supporting evidence. And, no matter how much effort you choose to expend to state otherwise, you didn't ask for anything. You made unsubstantiated demands upon a respondent under the misguided notion you were speaking for the majority. In any context that's rude. And, unfortunately, you fail to see that.

>
> Barry

David Fitzjarrell Received on Mon Aug 08 2005 - 08:20:19 CDT