Thursday, June 09, 2005

Expectations... Friends... Thoughts

Expectations are funny things. If you are an Oracle DBA author, people expect you to post Oracle related things on your blog all the time. Silly that, even if my blog sub-title clearly says that this is about my life... Also, don't expect that I'm going to be serious all the time either.

I have tried to interject some Oracle related stuff, and I will have another post on something Oracle related soon, promise!! :-) More personal stuff is coming, so feel free to leave if that doesn't interest you. I won't be offended.

In spite of my second-degree black belt, I'm not that combative really, and I think that anybody who really knows me knows that about me. In fact, I'm the anti-combatant, I'm all about discussing the merits of whatever the thing is (unless, of course, it happens to be the business end of a weapon, then I'm combative!) .

I'm a pretty faithful friend folks... but I choose my friends carefully. There is little I would not do for my true friends, there is little I would not trust a true friend with. There is nothing better than a true friend.

I pretty much respect other peoples point of view. I will admit frustration (even irritation and on occasion disgust) though with people who are so polarized that they can't discuss anything without loud rhetoric, emotion and mud slinging (and I hate it even worse when I allow myself to be drawn into those kinds of discussions).

I'll even admit that blatant partisianship (on either side) just makes me want to yell at someone or break a board or two or five. I will respect your point of view all day long if you will just provide a fact or two or at least a decent moral argument. That's all I ask. Heck, I'm happy to allow Multiple anonymous posts if they are insightful and smart, even if I don't agree with them.

If I provide facts you disagree with, don't just tell me that I'm crazy, or that I don't know what I'm talking about... At least provide some input of value, of worth and meaning and leave the drivel for the two year olds (ok, that's getting a bit combative!). I freely admit that I can be wrong, I have been wrong and I will be wrong in the future I'm sure. It happens, I'm human.

Just don't come here to be rude, this is not the blog for that. I'm not here to offend, and if I have I apologize. Really. If you are offended by something I say, send me an email or post a comment here, that is not my intent.

I do have an opinion, and will freely express it even if it's not popular. If you are offended by differing opinions, then it would be best if you didn't come here, it's that simple.

So....Let's not go to Camelot.... it is a silly place!

Robert

10 comments:

Bill S. said...

Robert,

You said, "In spite of my second-degree black belt, I'm not that combative really, and I think that anybody who really knows me knows that about me.". Well, I always thought that martial arts training was not about combat, it was about discipline and self-defense. So it wouldn't surprise me to find you "non-combative" :-D. As to your point regarding "I'll even admit that blatant partisianship (on either side) just makes me want to yell at someone or break a board or two or five.", I think you then need to make certain that inflammatory posts that serve no purpose other than to inflame are either removed, or that the subsequent responses should be allowed to stand. After all, it's only fair.

I am enjoying reading your blog, even (especially) the non-Oracle related stuff. Don't let the nasty comments you sometimes get stop you. There are folks like that no matter where you go or what you do.

Regards,

Bill S.

Bill S. said...

Robert,

Don't mean to back-post, quick correction:

I said "inflammatory posts" when I meant "inflammatory comments" - just wanted to set the record straight on that one (fingers faster than brain).

Thanks!

Regards,

Bill S.

Robert G. Freeman said...

I've kind of rethought my "get rid of posts" policy. Unless they are posts using words I'd not let my kids use, something illegal or clearly immoral or glaringly hostile.... I'll let them stand on their own merits.

Blogging is kind of a new thing for me, so it took me a while (and I'm still working on it) to decide where I stood on such issues. But, since one of my big issues is liberty, I guess that here I have to defend that too.

So, for those two folks who's comments I nuked earlier, I apologize.

I'd still prefer not to get anonymous posts, but as long as they are insightful and tasteful and not evil (and I must stand as long judge on this account), I'll let them stand.

Anonymous said...

With only my own knowledge of the characteristics of people who have achieved black belt status, in general I have found them to be much more defensive minded than offensive. Unfortunately many of these defensive minded people appear (in my opinion) to have invested much of their personal faith in both christianity and the political party of the current administration. While opinions can and do differ, some people believe that the current head of the administration has a real problem with honesty. One example area is with a history of military service or not. Another problem area is involvement with oil companies and Enron or not. Then there is the curious mixture of religion with politics, something that many of the founders of this problem would find appalling if not disgusting. The world we live is certainly a changing place and the rate at which it will change will continue to increase. Curious and sad in my opinion that many people will invest so heavily of their own personal integrity with such dubious characters and unwothy causes. Jim Baker lives on in my opinion. You appear to have the intellectual capacity to be able to process these types of items yet also appear to discard them as unworthy of your attention. An alternative viewpoint might involve heavy soul searching and ask questions such as how can anyone with any credible sense of morality support any amount of torture and repression in the name of freedom.

Anonymous said...

Have you ever consider that your Biblical references to "God" and "Evil" might be construed as anti-Satanic?

Robert, those who practice Wikka have equal rights to worship Lucifer as their true God, and Atheists have to be given equal rights.

Just remember that what you call evil is considered righteous by many who embrace their freedom of religion and worship the occult.

Robert G. Freeman said...

>> Have you ever consider that your
>> Biblical references to "God" and
>> "Evil" might be construed as
>> anti-Satanic?
>>
>> Robert, those who practice Wikka
>> have equal rights to worship
>> Lucifer as their true God, and
>> Atheists have to be given equal
>> rights.
>>
>> Just remember that what you call
>> evil is considered righteous by
>> many who embrace their freedom of
>> religion and worship the occult.

What do you say to such a post? I thought of blasting it off the blog, but I think that it clearly shows that there are those out there who don't get it (much less getting me). All I can say is that I hope this post was meant tongue in cheek. If it wasn't then the poster clearly feels that MBLA should feel free to express themselves and that we should allow baby sacrifices in the name of religious freedom. By their fruits, you shall know them.

Oh, and it's spelled Wicca.... and they worship a goddess and her consort who is a God. They do not recognize Satan or any other all-evil supernatural being. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/wic_sata.htm)

Robert G. Freeman said...

>> Unfortunately many of these
>> defensive minded people appear
>> (in my opinion) to have invested
>> much of their personal faith in
>> both christianity and the
>> political party of the current
>> administration.
My blog makes it clear, I think. I do not blindly follow the current administration, or even agree with them in a number of respects.

>> While opinions can and do differ,
>> some people believe that the
>> current head of the
>> administration has a real problem
>> with honesty.
Believing a thing, and a thing being true, are two different things. I think that both sides are way to quick to judge and the people, in general, are not educating themselves on the truth.

Thus, we are swept up by our passions and the passions of others. I mean, really, who *wants* smog, who *wants* to see Florida flooded as the result of some man-made global warming disaster.... but the facts simply are not there to prove that we are causing it. Period. What liberals can't prove by fact they try to convince with emotion, bullying (Michael Moore is a perfect example of this) or even deception (again, Moore).

The problem is that we, the people, don't educate ourselves on the facts at issue (and often the facts are not clear). The younger ones are more interested in VH1 or SNL, and the older ones are busy making a living.

So, many let emotion be our guide. Very dangerous thing that......

In some cases Clinton was just as ganged up on by the right, as Bush is by the left. There is no need for that.

>> One example area is with a
>> history of military service or
>> not.
I think that's old news. What is in the past should stay there. I never heard anyone on the left say anything about Clinton's somewhat checkered past with regards to the military or what he did to this countries defensive posture.

The least the left or the right could do is be consistent. Besides, one might say that Bush has been leading a war effort for some time now, and I think if one looks at history and fact, it's not without a great deal of success (granted, it's not perfect).

>> Another problem area is
>> involvement with oil companies
>> and Enron or not.
Every president has his "problems", for goodness sakes they are only men. So Bush lived in Texas and has contacts with oil companies. So what... I see no evidence that this impedes his ability to be president.

If he has done something illegal, then that's another story. Again, I've seen no facts, just hurling of mud with the hope that something will stick.

>> Then there is the curious mixture
>> of religion with politics,
>> something that many of the
>> founders of this problem would
>> find appalling if not disgusting.
LOL, I think you need to check your history again there.

While you are correct that there were some of the founding fathers that were not all that religious, most were to varying degrees. I think what *most* of the founding fathers would find troublesome is the attack on religion in general, and how many have moved away from it and really deny God. Of course, they are dead, so it's easy to put words in their mouths, since they can't refute them.

I agree 100% that there needs not be a state religion ever, however. I also agree that everyone should have the right to practice their religion however they see fit.

Also, I think that a person should not have to put his faith on the shelf when he runs for and attains office. That faith is part of who he is, and what the voters vote for.

This is a free, democratic society. If you think that religion should be completely out of the government, then you need to start your own no religion party I think.

>> The world we live is certainly a
>> changing place and the rate at
>> which it will change will
>> continue to increase.
Indeed it is. Nukes are only hours away from us.

>> Curious and sad in my opinion
>> that many people will invest so
>> heavily of their own personal
>> integrity with such dubious
>> characters and unwothy causes.
See, I don't understand this. Your whole approach is about your opinion, your feelings.... where are the facts? You sling mud, but there really isn't any fact to back it up. You expect perfection, which is unreasonable to attain. You clearly have an agenda that is biased against religion, which is fine and I respect that, but why.... that is the question.

>> Jim Baker lives on in my opinion.
Again, based on what? Humans being human? Humans making mistakes, or making choices you disagree with?

Did you Lampoon Clinton as well, or was there a special place in your heart for him? I just wonder.... see, that's the problem I see on the left, consistency. They loved Clinton, in spite of his many failings (Missiles, Monica, and aspirin factories to name a few).

Frankly, I liked Clinton... I just disagreed with many of his more socialist leaning politics.

>> You appear to have the
>> intellectual capacity to be able
>> to process these types of items
>> yet also appear to discard them
>> as unworthy of your attention.
Thanks...

>> An alternative viewpoint might
>> involve heavy soul searching and
>> ask questions such as how can
>> anyone with any credible sense
>> of morality support any amount
>> of torture and repression in the
>> name of freedom.
It's not just freedom. You yourself pointed out, this is a different time. This is about more than just freedom.

This is about an enemy who could care less if he kills his own people. (fact, clearly demonstrated in numerous places like the millions that Sadam killed)

This is about an enemy who potentially could take out the city of Chicago, Washington D.C., Miami or wherever with only a few pounds of uranium and they would not think twice about it. (fact - nuclear bombs exist, countries are acquiring the technologies as fast as they can, nukes are not that hard to transport and can be difficult to detect)

This is about state supported terrorism. This is about countries who fund terrorist organizations who then kill people around the world. (Fact, the 9/11 commission found that Iraq intelligence had contact with many terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda. The 9/11 report does NOT say that AL Qaeda was not involved.... go read what it really says about that topic...)

This is about folks who would think nothing about strapping bombs on young kids and promising them a flock of wives. (fact, it's happened in Israel)

This is about people who lie, cheat and kill for their own purposes. (previous facts make this pretty self evident.... )

If everyone would agree to play nice, play by the rules and respect everyone else..... oh happy happy joy joy. The reality is this isn't going to happen. The reality is that there are a number of bozo's over there who want to come over here and kill me. Truth be told, I don't want to kill. Bigger truth to be told, I don't want anyone shooting at my kids or grand kids.... so, we need to deal with the problem now.

This country has a duty to protect it's citizens and to protect it's place as the "bread basket" if you will, of freedom and liberty.

If there are countries that support terrorism as Afghanistan and Iraq did, then they need to be dealt with. If a man like Sadam or Hitler is killing millions of people, then he needs to be dealt with.

Where were all the liberals when Sadam was killing millions of people.... where were you guys? I just want to know.... all the morally upright liberals, where were you?

Shame on us for allowing that to happen. I think that well might be considered evil.

Anonymous said...

Here's an interesting article from cnn

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/07/iraq.uk.memo/index.html

Robert you appear to resent many things about Clinton which is fine as you are free to feel as you wish. But it was not Clinton that failed to remove Saddam in the first campaign when that objective was easily and clearly achievable.

Could it be that the head of the current administration had already made a calculated decision to do something his father had failed to do and was willing to go along with faked evidence of WOMD?

Sad day today in church our parish is mourning the loss of a young man killed thursday in Iraq.

If one has already decided to invade is one not obligated to have some kind of plan on what to do after the invasion?

Or is planning something that only certain types of dba's do?

Robert G. Freeman said...

Here is the actual Downing Street Memo as printed in the London times last week:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

Have you read it, or do you just depend on the press for analysis and commentary? Read it. From the memo:

>> C reported on his recent talks
>> in Washington. There was a
>> perceptible shift in attitude.
Talks with WHO exactly? It does not say... Shift in attitude compared to when? Clinton or pre 9/11 Bush? If pre 9/11 Bush then sure there was a change in attitude. DUH!!

>> Military action was now seen as
>> inevitable. Bush wanted to remove
>> Saddam, through military action,
>> justified by the conjunction of
>> terrorism and WMD.
This is hearsay in the document, it's not first person. Even so, so what. Again, read the 9/11 report... there is no evidence that Sadam was or was not involved, but there is clear evidence that Iraq intelligence was in contact with Al Quida.

>> But the intelligence and facts
>> were being fixed around the
>> policy.
Again, hearsay.... and woefully lacking in detail. It's an opinion, nothing more. How do you know this person wasn't a democratic senator or some other anti-war type? How reliable is this?

>> The NSC had no patience with the
>> UN route, and no enthusiasm for
>> publishing material on the Iraqi
>> regime's record.
Yeah... wonder why... let's see, 10 years, no success, questionable activities, possible WMD's.

>> There was little discussion in
>> Washington of the aftermath after
>> military action.
Again, hearsay. Also, we don't know the date of these "discussions".

Also, did you read this:

>> For instance, what were the
>> consequences, if Saddam used
>> WMD on day one, or if Baghdad
>> did not collapse and urban
>> warfighting began? You said that
>> Saddam could also use his WMD on
>> Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the
>> Defence Secretary.
Seems that even then they thought that Sadam might well have WMD's.

Anyway, read the memo.... In my opinion, it's certainly no smoking gun.

The press always wants something exciting, so what are they going to say.... A memo has been leaked... it's full of hearsay and, oh, by the way, it's classified and the person who leaked it broke the law.

Yep, the press... it's wind pretty much blows from the left.

Also, interestingly, in spite of the comments in the memo that seem to say Bush was ready to go to war, there were plenty of opportunities given to Sadam, POST THIS MEMO, before we actually took action.

>> Robert you appear to resent many
>> things about Clinton which is
>> fine as you are free to feel as
>> you wish. But it was not Clinton
>> that failed to remove Saddam in
>> the first campaign when that
>> objective was easily and clearly
>> achievable.
Resent? You put words in my mouth that I did not say, and words have meaning, use them carefully. I disagreed with many of Clinton's policies. With regards to Bush the first, I disagreed with that decision too. We should have dealt with the problem then. We made a mistake, mistakes happen.

>> Could it be that the head of the
>> current administration had
>> already made a calculated
>> decision to do something his
>> father had failed to do and was
>> willing to go along with faked
>> evidence of WOMD?
Could it be that aliens have kidnapped me at some point in my life, I suppose so. Still doesn't make it true. Could it be that we thought there were WMD's there? Could be. Dunno, wasn't there.

>> Sad day today in church our
>> parish is mourning the loss of
>> a young man killed thursday in
>> Iraq.
My condolences to you and your parish. It is never an easy thing to send ones son's or daughters into harm to protect liberty, is it? That is the price of liberty. As father of five (2 boys, 3 girls) I hope that they do not have to serve in war. However, if it required of them, I hope they will do so in dignity and with purpose. I would freely give my life in pursuit of the future freedom of my posterity, and I'd freely give my life if I thought that it would make a difference in the lives of a nation, one not even my own.

>> If one has already decided to
>> invade is one not obligated to
>> have some kind of plan on what to
>> do after the invasion?
I would think that was probably done. However.... you never quite know what you are planning for until the war is actually over, do you.

Arm chair quarter backs and generals, gotta love 'em. If you are really interested, go run for office and get involved. Don't just sit on the sidelines and complain and gripe because it's imperfect.

oregano said...

A non-combative DBA? I thought the only difference between a DBA and an insurgent was you could negotiate with the insurgent.

My understanding of history is that the founding fathers simply wanted to keep the President from becoming Pope of America, to allow religious choice to be a choice and not dictated by the government. It is a vast difference between the founding intention and the wholesale elimination of God from our government. A government by the people, for the people will reflect the culture of the people. If we have eliminated God from our government, what does that say about our culture?

 
Subscribe in a reader