D
David W. Fenton
m:
<PLONK>
<PLONK>
Seems like a good spot for me to put in a plug for
comp.databases.ms-access, which is USENET, still around (as you,
of course, know -- as you are a regular there), and still useful.
If a user doesn't employ newsreader software, it can be accessed
via http://groups.google.com (though I don't recommend that for
general use, but do recommend it for searching the archives).
It is very sad that you have reacted the way you have, The UA
rules state very clearly
"Participants shall not post any material that (1) is likely to
cause offence ..."
Many people join UA, as opposed to other groups, for this very
reason, - not because thay want to be protected from the real
world but because they want to have an intelligent, courteous
discourse on a subject without being subjected to unnecessary and
destructive criticism.
And, 'Chris', you are right -- it was prefaced by that stronger
word, which made it even worse as many of us (especially women)
know the origin of that term.
While Access 2007 can still work with
replication via code (not available on menus),
m:
<PLONK>
David W. Fenton said:For calling a stupid suggestion a stupid suggestion, one of the
moderators at UtterAccess has banned me because I refused to
apologize for the infraction of calling bad advice bad advice.
Be warned that on UtterAccess.com, anyone can post terrible advice
if they do it politely (according to what the moderators arbitrarily
consider "polite") and continue to post bad advice. If, on the other
hand, one strongly criticizes someone else's advice, you can be
banned, even if you're right about the bad advice.
I would suggest that this should makes anyone question the
reliability of anything posted on UtterAccess if it's not confirmed
elsewhere.
while the options for replication and user security are on the
Database Tools ribbon if you use an older version database, they
are not if the database is in Access 2007 format, ACCDB -- I
should have clarified that.
But if you are using an MDB with replication, why use 2007?
While SharePoint is in its infancy, Microsoft is building its
capabilities and it will become quite impressive
You know far more about the replication feature than I do, but
replication is not the only approach.
As replication has been removed from the ACCDB format, if you are
wanting to build a database that will carry you into the future,
it is wise to explore other avenues. Future versions of Access
may not support MDBs.
SharePoint does not work like replication -- but no one said it
did!
That is why SharePoint is an ALTERNATE approach to allowing folks
to add to and update from the same tables. The RI issue will be
resolved as SharePoint grows; and there are other exciting things
in store; new features that we have never had. Whether you like
it or not, this is the direction that Microsoft has decided to
take.
Personally, I use a different approach than either replication or
SharePoint. I currently synchronize databases with my own code
and additional tracking information ... and my method will
continue to work.
You seem too interested in putting others down
and this is exactly what
got you banned. For the record, it was not just ONE person who
felt this way, although Glenn failed to mention this; there was a
discussion and a consensus was done before this action was taken.
You have made it clear this was was indeed the right decision.
Your last message to me was fairly good, but then you had to throw
one sentence in that was below the belt and got me mad.
Why not just leave
stuff like that out? Or word it in a way that is not offensive?
You
are so bright, David, there is just no need ...
You also plonk others with wisdom to share if they say something
that ruffles your feathers ...
so you are eliminating valuable resources as
well. It all seems so silly -- when everyone is nice, this is not
an issue.
so from their point of view, it does "work like replication"
In your judgement, which I consider completely wrong. I *was*
disrespectful of his *advice*, but not in any way towards the poster
himself.
What I consider disrespectful is posting an answer that completely
ignores the original poster's requirements, as was the case with the
answer I criticized. I also almost simultaneously posted a response
to the original question with much better advice that was actually
responsive to the OP's problem.
Confusing criticism of a post and criticism of a person shows that
you don't really understand "respect." Strong criticism of the
content of someone's post is a sign of *respect*, as it takes them
seriously strongly criticising the content of their advice.
Well, I wish I'd known that about UA on the front end -- it's a
protected environment for those who are fearful and lacking in self
confidence. I doubt I'd have ever spent any time trying to help
people there if I knew it was a "special olympics" kind of forum.
I don't know if what you post is relation to *me*, but I will say
that I am anything but anonymous online. I try very hard to maintain
a single identity across all the online forums in which I
participate. This has caused me much grief a StackOverflow.com, for
instance, where they enforce a ridiculously stupid "no signatures"
policy, so my posts there don't look like my posts in all other
forums on the Internet.
I value my identity.
And I stand by every last word I've ever posted.
When I've been wrong, I've apologized.
But I'm certainly not going to apologize for offering good advice.
And I have no doubt that my advice was good, and that the strong
rejection of the bad advice was the correct approach. We could
quibble over the wording of that strong rejection, but that would
always come down to coddling the easily-offended, in my opinion.
But here's an important point
Nobody else on UA has 12 years of regular experience with Jet
replication. Now, because of this over-sensitivity to strong
language, there is nobody left on UA who has extensive experience
with Jet replication to help those who need help. I don't claim to
know everything (heaven knows, Michael Kaplan has forgotten more
about replication than I ever knew), but the lack of knowledge on
the subject at UA was a crying need when I signed up. The only
reason I ever got involved in UA was to help people using Jet
replication, precisely because there's so little understanding of
the capabilities of the technology and so much misinformation about
it.
Now, UA users won't be getting my help.
This is fine with me -- it frees up my time. But I can't help but
think that the policy of protecting the whiny-assed titty babies
from impolite peoplie like myself is depriving them of useful
information.
That equation seems out of balance to me.
I didn't do any such thing, and you know it perfectly well. I
belittled someone's *advice*, not the the person offering the
advice. And by posting that, you are lying about what happened. I'd
appreciate a retraction, or at least a clarification that you agree
that the person who wrote that was completely mischaracterizing the
exchanged that actually happened.
There was no insulting invective. I said his advice was stupid.
That's all. I then went on to briefly explain why it was stupid. Had
I unsulted him directly I would have apologized.
But that's not what happened, and that's why I refused to apologize.
You mean like this one? I don't see anything at all wrong with the
level of discourse here. I think you're protecting thin-skinned
people from the real world when you set up a forum that rewards
hair-trigger "I'm offended" mentalities.
I think that, ultimately, it's probably good this happened. I never
should have been involved with UA, as it's clearly a site based on
premises that I find damaging and unhelpful.
You might consider what it means to your users that you banned me
instead of engaging in dialogue on the subject.
Likewise, that you've now edited content that I posted in a way that
misrepresents what I said. Were I a non-involved UA user, I'd start
being very suspicious of any post marked as having been edited by
anyone but the OP.
I think UA is utterly discredited by everything you've said above.
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.