I've been banned from UtterAccess

[David W. Fenton]

You're welcome to disagree with my view that f-bombs and other
forms of personal attack do not promote discourse.

The problem is that many people seem unable to distinguish the use
of strong language to criticize something someone posted, versus
strong language used to criticize and individual.

Aaron is certainly not one of the hard cases -- he uses ad hominem
attacks, while pretending that he's criticizing the advice in a
post.

The problem is that someone would be making the decision to ban and
that means that in a certain number of cases, mistakes will happen.
It's the equivalent of a Usenet death penalty (though rather easily
circumvented), and like the real-life death penalty, I think it's
better to put up with the annoyances of an Aaron Kempf (using a
killfile judiciously to avoid seeing his crap) than it is to start
hunting down offenders and banning them.

Spirited discourse is better than civil discourse, in my opinion.
The problem, of course, is that spirits often get out of hand and
become uncivil. I say that goes with the territory of all human
discourse and is a feature, not a defect.

 

[BruceM]

I have to acknowledge you are probably correct about banning in general.
However, I think a somewhat firmer hand could be applied to individual
threads or posts without compromising the spirit of an open newsgroup.

I have the lowest possible regard for Aaron's opinions about me or Access,
but I would rather not see his "You must be an idiot" species of response to
new posters with Access-related questions. I can only repond as quickly as
is possible to assure the OP that there is plenty of help to be had, but
Aaron is not it. When somebody responds in that vein the thread tends to
get taken over by a slugfest that ignores the original question, but I guess
that's just the way it goes sometimes.

I think spirited and civil discourse both have their place. Like running
and jumping, they answer different situations.

 

[aaron.kempf]

there's nothing wrong with strong language...
there's nothing wrong with strong language...
except for the fact that some fucking pansy faggot wrote letters to my
boss-- complaining about posts that I made-- working at home-- on my
own time
except for the fact that some fucking pansy faggot wrote letters to my
boss-- complaining about posts that I made-- working at home-- on my
own time

 

[aaron.kempf]

Bruce;

I have the lowest possible regard for you or any of your Jet-faggot
friends.

There's a hundred million engineers from india-- that know a better
database, that is easier to write.. and easier to maintain.. and 'more
free than free'.
There's a hundred million engineers from india-- that know a better
database, that is easier to write.. and easier to maintain.. and 'more
free than free'.
And you're just too fat, lazy and stupid-- to learn the worlds most
popular database
And you're just too fat, lazy and stupid-- to learn the worlds most
popular database

-Aaron

I have to acknowledge you are probably correct about banning in general.
However, I think a somewhat firmer hand could be applied to individual
threads or posts without compromising the spirit of an open newsgroup.

I have the lowest possible regard for Aaron's opinions about me or Access,
but I would rather not see his "You must be an idiot" species of responseto
new posters with Access-related questions.  I can only repond as quickly as
is possible to assure the OP that there is plenty of help to be had, but
Aaron is not it.  When somebody responds in that vein the thread tends to
get taken over by a slugfest that ignores the original question, but I guess
that's just the way it goes sometimes.

I think spirited and civil discourse both have their place.  Like running
and jumping, they answer different situations.

"BruceM" <bamoob_at_yawhodotcalm.not> wrote in

The problem is that many people seem unable to distinguish the use
of strong language to criticize something someone posted, versus
strong language used to criticize and individual.

Aaron is certainly not one of the hard cases -- he uses ad hominem
attacks, while pretending that he's criticizing the advice in a
post.

The problem is that someone would be making the decision to ban and
that means that in a certain number of cases, mistakes will happen.
It's the equivalent of a Usenet death penalty (though rather easily
circumvented), and like the real-life death penalty, I think it's
better to put up with the annoyances of an Aaron Kempf (using a
killfile judiciously to avoid seeing his crap) than it is to start
hunting down offenders and banning them.

Spirited discourse is better than civil discourse, in my opinion.
The problem, of course, is that spirits often get out of hand and
become uncivil. I say that goes with the territory of all human
discourse and is a feature, not a defect.

 

[aaron.kempf]

and maybe if you weren't just such an idiot-- for insisting that
everyone use jet-- just because some lazy fat retard from canada--
doesn't have the mental capacity-- to run through a single upsizing
wizard--

maybe if you didn't attack everyone who knows databases (Access and
SQL) better than you--

then maybe people woudln't call you-- or others-- an idiot

-Aaron

I have to acknowledge you are probably correct about banning in general.
However, I think a somewhat firmer hand could be applied to individual
threads or posts without compromising the spirit of an open newsgroup.

I have the lowest possible regard for Aaron's opinions about me or Access,
but I would rather not see his "You must be an idiot" species of responseto
new posters with Access-related questions.  I can only repond as quickly as
is possible to assure the OP that there is plenty of help to be had, but
Aaron is not it.  When somebody responds in that vein the thread tends to
get taken over by a slugfest that ignores the original question, but I guess
that's just the way it goes sometimes.

I think spirited and civil discourse both have their place.  Like running
and jumping, they answer different situations.

"BruceM" <bamoob_at_yawhodotcalm.not> wrote in

The problem is that many people seem unable to distinguish the use
of strong language to criticize something someone posted, versus
strong language used to criticize and individual.

Aaron is certainly not one of the hard cases -- he uses ad hominem
attacks, while pretending that he's criticizing the advice in a
post.

The problem is that someone would be making the decision to ban and
that means that in a certain number of cases, mistakes will happen.
It's the equivalent of a Usenet death penalty (though rather easily
circumvented), and like the real-life death penalty, I think it's
better to put up with the annoyances of an Aaron Kempf (using a
killfile judiciously to avoid seeing his crap) than it is to start
hunting down offenders and banning them.

Spirited discourse is better than civil discourse, in my opinion.
The problem, of course, is that spirits often get out of hand and
become uncivil. I say that goes with the territory of all human
discourse and is a feature, not a defect.

 

[BruceM]

Once again (not as if you are going to pay attention any more than at other
times), I have NEVER insisted that everyone use Jet. You, however, have
insisted that everyone use SQL Server for every database need. To the
extent I "attack" anybody it is you for irrelevant and incorrect
information, and those who troll for paying jobs in this forum. I most
certainly do not attack "everyone". Your fury has blinded you.

and maybe if you weren't just such an idiot-- for insisting that
everyone use jet-- just because some lazy fat retard from canada--
doesn't have the mental capacity-- to run through a single upsizing
wizard--

maybe if you didn't attack everyone who knows databases (Access and
SQL) better than you--

then maybe people woudln't call you-- or others-- an idiot

-Aaron

I have to acknowledge you are probably correct about banning in general.
However, I think a somewhat firmer hand could be applied to individual
threads or posts without compromising the spirit of an open newsgroup.

I have the lowest possible regard for Aaron's opinions about me or Access,
but I would rather not see his "You must be an idiot" species of response
to
new posters with Access-related questions. I can only repond as quickly as
is possible to assure the OP that there is plenty of help to be had, but
Aaron is not it. When somebody responds in that vein the thread tends to
get taken over by a slugfest that ignores the original question, but I
guess
that's just the way it goes sometimes.

I think spirited and civil discourse both have their place. Like running
and jumping, they answer different situations.

"BruceM" <bamoob_at_yawhodotcalm.not> wrote in

The problem is that many people seem unable to distinguish the use
of strong language to criticize something someone posted, versus
strong language used to criticize and individual.

Aaron is certainly not one of the hard cases -- he uses ad hominem
attacks, while pretending that he's criticizing the advice in a
post.

The problem is that someone would be making the decision to ban and
that means that in a certain number of cases, mistakes will happen.
It's the equivalent of a Usenet death penalty (though rather easily
circumvented), and like the real-life death penalty, I think it's
better to put up with the annoyances of an Aaron Kempf (using a
killfile judiciously to avoid seeing his crap) than it is to start
hunting down offenders and banning them.

Spirited discourse is better than civil discourse, in my opinion.
The problem, of course, is that spirits often get out of hand and
become uncivil. I say that goes with the territory of all human
discourse and is a feature, not a defect.

 

[aaron.kempf]

you're a blatant liar and a whore

you run around.. everytime that SQL Server would fit a need--
securty-- prevent corruption, etc.. and you insist that people use Jet
(just because you're too egocentric to know the worlds most popular
database).

You're one of many that insist that people use Jet.. just because Tony
tried _ONE_ upsizing once and he didn't have the mental capacity to
learn the worlds most popular database.

You think that it costs money.
You think that it's 'too complex'.

SQL is an optional component on the MS Office Professional disk.. and
it's fucking stupid that you insist that SQL Server is _NEVER_ the
right answer.. just because jet is so much fun (but don't mind the
corruption / bloat / mountains of unmaintainable vba code)

 

[aaron.kempf]

Bruce;

I have the lowest possible regard for you or any of your Jet-faggot
friends.


There's a hundred million engineers from india-- that know a better
database, that is easier to write.. and easier to maintain.. and
'more
free than free'.
There's a hundred million engineers from india-- that know a better
database, that is easier to write.. and easier to maintain.. and
'more
free than free'.
And you're just too fat, lazy and stupid-- to learn the worlds most
popular database
And you're just too fat, lazy and stupid-- to learn the worlds most
popular database


-Aaron

 

[BruceM]

ROFL

Bruce;

I have the lowest possible regard for you or any of your Jet-faggot
friends.


There's a hundred million engineers from india-- that know a better
database, that is easier to write.. and easier to maintain.. and
'more
free than free'.
There's a hundred million engineers from india-- that know a better
database, that is easier to write.. and easier to maintain.. and
'more
free than free'.
And you're just too fat, lazy and stupid-- to learn the worlds most
popular database
And you're just too fat, lazy and stupid-- to learn the worlds most
popular database


-Aaron

 

[aaron.kempf]

who the **** needs Oracle??

ADP -- in SQL -- does everything I need.. and it works with the worlds
most popular reporting engine, olap engine and olap tools.

Oracle doesn't.
Jet doesn't.

 

[The Code Cage Team]

David, i know this thread is old and all this has died down, but i jus
wanted to say i know how you feel, the problem with text based answer
is that they are emotive, the text is read with the emotion and frame o
mind of the reader!

Advice given may be good or bad, it's free and as such the OP wil
expect to recieve a mixed bag, the responders by the same rule shoul
also be open minded and humble enough to accept criticism an
correction, as users of the MS Office package we quickly learn there ar
a 100 ways to perform the same tasks, sometimes we have to accept tha
bad advice fits the OP's situation perfectly, naturally it will caus
future problems for which they will come back, post again where you ca
impart your knowledge with a much better suggestion.

Just my two pennies worth, the moderators at our site would never ba
unless personal abuse or attacks had taken place (eveyones entitled t
an opinion!) so unfortunately Aaron.Kempf would have been banned for hi
postings to Bruce!

The problem is that many people seem unable to distinguish the use
of strong language to criticize something someone posted, versus
strong language used to criticize and individual.

Aaron is certainly not one of the hard cases -- he uses ad hominem
attacks, while pretending that he's criticizing the advice in a
post.

The problem is that someone would be making the decision to ban and
that means that in a certain number of cases, mistakes will happen.
It's the equivalent of a Usenet death penalty (though rather easily
circumvented), and like the real-life death penalty, I think it's
better to put up with the annoyances of an Aaron Kempf (using a
killfile judiciously to avoid seeing his crap) than it is to start
hunting down offenders and banning them.

Spirited discourse is better than civil discourse, in my opinion.
The problem, of course, is that spirits often get out of hand and
become uncivil. I say that goes with the territory of all human
discourse and is a feature, not a defect.

--
David W. Fenton 'David W. Fenton's Home Page
(http://www.dfenton.com/)
usenet at dfenton dot com 'David Fenton Associates
(http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

--
The Code Cage Tea

Regards,
The Code Cage Team
'The Code Cage' (http://www.thecodecage.com