At 8/19/2008 10:54 PM, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
Yeah David, your right. I know nothing. I suppose the 2 years I made money
doing the rather boring work of being a DBA doesn't mean anything.
Wow, you sure fooled your bosses.
___
Finale mailing list
Yeah, ok, late diggs. You quite a man there. Really. Couldn't just be quiet
about it huh? Had to add your 2 cents?
Personally, I don't care what you think. I was Oracle certified, and made a
ton of money. So, STFU.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 4:25 AM, Phil Daley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At
Fenton, shut the fuck up guy.
er... that's conversational fascism, and worse than anything you've
accused david of, in my HUGEly underappreciated opinion.
Other people suggested Excel, or even file cards. It worked well for them.
(sigh)
again: no one has denied these methods can work.
On Aug 19, 2008, at 6:45 PM, shirling neueweise wrote:
again: no one has denied these methods can work. several people
have pointed out the benefits of relational DB over a flat
structure, which you seem to disagree with. fine, but just because
you disagree doesn't mean you're right,
On 19 Aug 2008 at 19:21, Eric Dannewitz wrote:
I'm not going to argue that
a relational database isn't a good thing. It is. For huge amounts of
data.
You really understand *nothing* about proper database design if you
think the *amount* of data involved determines what the level of
Yeah David, your right. I know nothing. I suppose the 2 years I made money
doing the rather boring work of being a DBA doesn't mean anything. Nor the
time I spent building a rather amazing database that would take a test, and
break it up into a dizzying array of tables. Plus all the statistical
