A while ago I posted an exchange with Jonathan Lewis On Criticism.
Shortly thereafter I came across an entry in Tom Kyte’s blog,
where he considered doing some debunking himself. Most of the reactions he
received were negative: stay "constructive", let others do it, etc.
So I emailed him and the following exchange ensued.
From: Fabian Pascal
To: Tom Kyte
I think you should do the debunkings as you intended, and not
listen to the naysayers (I debunked at least one of those in the past). Here is
the reason: in a system where 80-90% of pronouncements are correct, perhaps
there is not sufficient reason to dedicate much time to debunking. But in a
system where they are 80-90% wrong, as this industry is, it is a necessity. As
long as the knowledgeable, reasoning people do not dedicate time to flushing
out the crap and calling a spade a spade, the right stuff will drown in a sea
of nonsense, which is what really happens today. The number of uninformed,
uneducated people that enter the industry is huge and increasing, and most of
their information they get from people who reached the status of experts
without a clue. This system feeds on itself and is decaying rapidly. It is not
sufficient to say the right things anymore, it's imperative to also expose the
wrong things.
Incidentally, the link you reference in the blog as an
example of bluntness was a message from a reader without any comment from us,
because none was warranted. Be that as it may, bluntness is, unfortunately,
necessary to get attention and not drown in a sea of crap.
From: Tom Kyte
To: Fabian Pascal
Thanks so much for the feedback, really unexpected. I hope
you didn't read my writing as critical of your approach, I find your site to be
really useful and believe in the you can criticize me and I can criticize you
route (way too much garbage out there, it is unbelievable).
The reason I decided not to do it on the blog was not because
of a naysayer but rather some heartfelt "don't stoop to that level, stay
above the fray". I think there is something to be said about that. Don't
get me wrong, on asktom.oracle.com—I'm all over inaccuracies and will continue
to clinically and technically debunk the crap out of them.
I changed the wording on my blog to reflect more clearly that
it was a reader that made those statements, it now reads:
... I'll try not to be as blunt as they and their readers
are sometimes, (but I do rather like the readers use of the dictionary in this
letter to the editor, I'm fond of that tool as well) ...
One of my greatest fears—one morning I'll wake up and find
myself quoted on dbdebunk, closest I've gotten so far was an indirect reference
via a Jonathan Gennick paper on Oracle's predicate pushing and view merging.
So, I'll keep the debunking clinical and technical for now on
asktom.oracle.com and use the blog to just sort of talk and blow off steam.
From: Fabian Pascal
Hey, same here. No criticism at all. I just got people coming
from your blog to my site so I found the link there and skimmed thru the
reactions to your idea.
I feel the same way, but I've long come to the conclusion
that the crap is so overwhelming and the masses of uninformed/uneducated people
so great, that there is no choice but to call a spade a spade. You don't have
to stoop to their level, just the opposite: you demonstrate how low their level
is by staying at your level in your criticism. That's how I do it.
It was not a big deal. And I don't mind at all to be deemed
blunt, because I am. And there's a reason for that.
Well, you're at the product level, which is not my cup of
soup, so the chances for that are slim. But even if you said something wrong, I
would not treat you like the ignorami of the industry. I will let you know
about it, because I know you will take it seriously and are interested in being
right. I won't lump you together with them.
Up to you, of course. But I think it's a duty of the good
guys to flush out the crap, or the masses will be screwed by it.
Posted 6/17/05
