April 19, 2009 at 9:17 pm
You know, it's been a long day, I think it's time to get some sleep. Maybe then I can re-engage in a more meaningful dialog and hit the right buttons.
April 19, 2009 at 9:21 pm
And, as a final thought before I leave. As a professional, I must admit when I was wrong. Paul, I was wrong. Please except my apologies. And that includes another 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me. Let's see, I think that brings the total to 150. That'll work.
April 19, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Lynn Pettis (4/19/2009)
And, as a final thought before I leave. As a professional, I must admit when I was wrong. Paul, I was wrong. Please except my apologies. And that includes another 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me. Let's see, I think that brings the total to 150. That'll work.
Hey, don't worry about - mistakes happen - all old news now.
I could have left it a bit longer before hitting DEFCON 1 with my reply - so I'll accept my share too.
Enough with the lashes already.
Let's all move on. Nothing to see here... 🙂
😎
April 19, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Paul White (4/19/2009)
Lynn Pettis (4/19/2009)
And, as a final thought before I leave. As a professional, I must admit when I was wrong. Paul, I was wrong. Please except my apologies. And that includes another 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me. Let's see, I think that brings the total to 150. That'll work.Hey, don't worry about - mistakes happen - all old news now.
I could have left it a bit longer before hitting DEFCON 1 with my reply - so I'll accept my share too.
Enough with the lashes already.
Let's all move on. Nothing to see here... 🙂
😎
It was your reply that made Jeff's comment "look eye" hit home for me and showed me my mistake.
Thank you for being such a professional about it. It makes me feel better. I still feel bad, but better.
April 19, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I have edited out my rant because the transaction was rolled back, and therefore it never logically existed.
Anyone who saw it must have been experiencing 'dirty reads'.
😉
Paul
April 19, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Paul White (4/19/2009)
I have edited out my rant because the transaction was rolled back, and therefore it never logically existed.Anyone who saw it must have been experiencing 'dirty reads'.
😉
Paul
Took your lead, transaction rolled back, completely!
April 20, 2009 at 1:44 am
Jeff Moden (4/19/2009)
steve dassin (4/19/2009)
And there's nothing cheap in the ideas I'm trying to convey.That's the point I've been trying to make. Some of your ideas are great... the manner in which you try to convey them isn't. Like you said, Res ipse loquitor.
A ya and nay. A wash. I'll take it 🙂
best,
steve
April 20, 2009 at 2:07 am
steve dassin (4/20/2009)
A ya and nay. A wash. I'll take it 🙂
...and everyone's happy. Cool.
April 20, 2009 at 6:41 am
Hey there Andrew, sorry the reference was so obscure.
andrew gothard (4/19/2009)
wldhrs (4/17/2009)
RBarryYoung (4/16/2009) andrew gothard (4/15/2009) Jeff Moden (4/14/2009) Jim Russell (4/14/2009) Charles Kincaid (4/13/2009)
Okkkk....
All of you, have, like, been taking a point of view that has only one common thread, and I would guess that Hunter S Thompson, if he were still allive, may not be unfamiliar with this context either.
Could this thread be re--presented as an approach to -original- as opposed to -artificial- intelligence?
No I'm not joking.
Sorry, but, EH?
"The Edge ... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over. The others -the living- are those who pushed their luck as far as they felt they could handle it, and then pulled back, or slowed down, or did whatever they had to when it came time to choose between Now and Later. But the edge is still Out there."
- Hunter Stockton Thompson (July 18 1937 – February 20 2005)
Creator of the technique of Gonzo journalism where the reporters involve themselves in the action to such an extent that they become central figures of their stories.
It struck me that all these thread particpants were describing being in the midst of the development of an original form of thinking in which they were players.
And that this thread, while starting as a geeky debate about syntax, was evolving into a discussion of the underpinnings of various syntaxes, both computer and human, and consequently the evolution of the original human intelligence that came up with the whole shebang.
As opposed to a debate about the artificial (sorry, bad pun) intelligence of the development of compilers with specific intents.
Peter Edmunds ex-Geek
April 20, 2009 at 3:14 pm
steve dassin (4/17/2009)
dphillips (4/17/2009)
steve dassin (4/17/2009)
Please remember I'm not looking to play stump the grump :-). Go in with a positive attitude. Window shopping is ok. There's always a chance you'll see something you'll consider buying.(snipped some)
best,
steve
I have to admit, I'm a bit sketchy on your product. But I do know this, I come here to chat about SQL Server, not RAC.
I also admit that I tend to have a bit of apathy for products or sales or messaging that use other's publicity to pitch their product.
Nevertheless I don't see how the following pitch would bring the customers in:
"I don't know if you guys have to be dragged into the 21 century or you just need a little push. I just hope I'm not dealing with cerebral cement."
:doze:
Hello,
No one is talking about the RAC utility here. Here's what I want to talk about:
From Database Design » Relational Theory » New Relational Sub-Language?
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums /Topic360790-374-2.aspx#bm473331
Your link is broken (remove space after Forums to use).
Which product matters not. The pitch methods and copy is what I am referring to.
April 20, 2009 at 3:39 pm
And by the way Steve Dassin, you may want to go re-read Snarky's comments.
:blink:
April 20, 2009 at 4:30 pm
dphillips (4/20/2009)
And by the way Steve Dassin, you may want to go re-read Snarky's comments.
Let it go dude 🙂
April 20, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Paul White (4/20/2009)
dphillips (4/20/2009)
And by the way Steve Dassin, you may want to go re-read Snarky's comments.Let it go dude 🙂
ooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
April 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm
dphillips (4/20/2009)
And by the way Steve Dassin, you may want to go re-read Snarky's comments.:blink:
Apparently in my haste to find an empathic voice I overlooked the true message this sardonic wit was sending me. Thank you so much for setting me straight. As for my 'pitch' perhaps I would have more success with you if I were hawking rice krispies or shaving cream. Ditch the pitch seems to be a popular rallying point here. Consider it my contribution of gin to your mill. But I do look forward to your insights in the future. I will give your comments and Pauls the scrutiny they deserve. 🙂
best,
steve
April 20, 2009 at 6:20 pm
steve dassin (4/20/2009)
dphillips (4/20/2009)
And by the way Steve Dassin, you may want to go re-read Snarky's comments.:blink:
Apparently in my haste to find an empathic voice I overlooked the true message this sardonic wit was sending me. Thank you so much for setting me straight. As for my 'pitch' perhaps I would have more success with you if I were hawking rice krispies or shaving cream. Ditch the pitch seems to be a popular rallying point here. Consider it my contribution of gin to your mill. But I do look forward to your insights in the future. I will give your comments and Pauls the scrutiny they deserve. 🙂
best,
steve
There is no winner or loser here. If we cannot communicate, then everyone loses. I am no judge... To refuse to recognize that several have stated dislike of the bluntness of the message and/or not make better on it, in general baffles me a bit. If that is the intended message...
I am at a loss...
Viewing 15 posts - 241 through 255 (of 266 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply