Tom.Thomson (4/11/2010)
You continue to distort - clearly quite deliberately.
Psychic Tom strikes again! Not only did you "know" how much documentation I had checked earlier, you now "know" that I am 'quite clearly' distorting your words! How do you know that? Why would I do that? What would be my motivation? If you really want to know, I find your replies hard work: they are too long, and you do not communicate at all clearly. I don't have all day to try to decode what you write, you know.
Can you tell me how "it's incomplete. What there is of it is incorrect" means "not incorrect", how it means "incomplete" alone and doesn't suggest "incorrect"? Or even how it is unclear?
Yes Tom, I can. It is an unclear and bizarre construction. I'm not sure even you know what you mean here. Is it merely incomplete? Or is it incorrect? I don't know why you insist on writing two awkward sentences when a couple of words will do, really I don't. Do you do it intentionally?
The person who had asked for more explanation appeared to like it. That matters more to my than all your venemous ranting
Well, that's rich! I would invite you to read your own submissions before casting aspersions.
I, and probably most civilised people regard that sort of deliberate selection of part of a statement to give the impression that something was said that clearly was not said
Hmmm...civilised might be a bit strong, given your performance here. Look, I've already said that I have tried to be fair when quoting. Your responses are just far too long to quote in their entirety. If you feel you have been misquoted, I would invite you to consider whether that was really done deliberately and maliciously - or whether perhaps you might have been less than clear?
So you continue to distort.
All I said was that I tried to be fair, and you don't express yourself well. That is my genuine perception, and even 'psychic Tom' can't argue with that.
I think the statement you mangled was clear, and you deliberately chose to truncate it to give the impression that I had said something which I clearly diod not say.
No, Tom. You presume far too much. Your statement was not clear at all. I did not truncate it to misrepresent what I read.
Then why did you say that your change from "wrong" to "pedantic" was a change in position?
I didn't - I thought you were referring to yourself in the following (complete) passage:
Exactly. It is the TYPE that is at issue. It can hardly be the LENGTH of an expression whose value is NULL, can it? It really irritates me that you keep on insisting that "LENGTH" is correct and that I'm wrong or pedantic (that does seem to be a bit of a retraction from wrong though, doesn't it) to say that it's the TYPE that matters, since you clearly do understand full well that it's the TYPE (and the length that is embedded in that TYPE) not the LENGTH of the argument that counts.
:Wow:
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi