Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- From: "Tim..." <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Mar 2006 05:37:50 -0800
I'm sorry you wasted your time, but as I keep saying, it was a draft
document ie. a work in progress.
I did not present it as a new article. It never appeared on my "Latest
Articles" section on my front page or in an XML feed. You read it
because google will index any old crap it ever gets its hands on.
If I had intended people to read it I would have started with, "this is
what I tried but it didn't work", or something like that.
I can't speak for other sites, but if you see an article on my site
that mentions the word draft anywhere in the title or first paragraph,
don't bother following the instructions. It's a work in progress and
you have been directed to it by accident!
Cheers
Tim...
.
- References:
- Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- From: Bart the bear
- Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- From: Jonathan Lewis
- Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- From: Tim...
- Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- From: Mladen Gogala
- Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- Prev by Date: Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- Next by Date: Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- Previous by thread: Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- Next by thread: Re: Article about Oracle10.2 and FC5 on ORACLE-BASE is misleading
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|