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.

wrote in message
...
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



On Apr 1, 5:02 am, "BruceM" bamoob_at_yawhodotcalm.not wrote:
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.

"David W. Fenton" wrote in
messagenews:Xns9BDFDD7598D39f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@7 4.209.136.97...

"BruceM" bamoob_at_yawhodotcalm.not wrote in
:

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.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/