A Microsoft Office (Excel, Word) forum. OfficeFrustration

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » OfficeFrustration forum » Microsoft Access » Database Design
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 12th, 2006, 03:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Robert Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

I still don't buy that this is either product-specific or amateur-specific.
I've seen countless numbers of experienced, formally trained (and who
learned it on their own) database programmers on every platform I've ever
used who use "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views, "usp" for user stored
procedures, not to mention "frm" for forms, "rpt" for reports, etc., ad
nauseum.

Personally, I don't see the point of starting ALL objects in a category with
the same letters; that's generally redundant (though occasionally useful
when you're trying to distinguish between views and tables, etc.). My
general preference is to base it around the function of the object. "acct"
for account-related tables, "resp" for respondent-related tables, "list" for
simple lookup-type tables, etc. Only for objects that don't have a
significant inter-relationship with the rest of the database (i.e.,
localization tables, user preferences, etc.) do I use the generic "tbl",
"frm", or whatever.

And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article in
1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said,
Simonyi Károly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he
started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. It's hardly
a surprise that it later appeared in a Microsoft product that he worked on.
Hell, ignore Hungarian notation for a moment, how long ago did people start
using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first constructs I learned
almost 30 years ago.


Rob

"Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote in
message ...
Oh and just for the record, Hungarian Notation became popular with
languages like VB/VBA, but actually pre-dates it. The inventor, Simonyi
Károly, was working for Xerox at the time and only much later did he move
to Microsoft.


For the record "tbl" and other such fripperies first appeared in a 1993
Smart Access article and has subsequently appeared in the ADH books. I
don't
mind one using tags in code but not for database objects. Charles Simonyi
actually worked on Access 1; I am not sure what he thinks of the
Lesynski/Reddick extensions.

It is a good sign of an amateur with limited experience of other products.
Some amateurs are very good programmers though.

Nearly all formally trained Relational (or SQL) Database designers would
find this "tbl" tag laughable.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

"Robert Morley" wrote in message
...
Like I said, different ways of thinking. I look at most of your points
and disagree with them either in part or in whole, but frankly, this
isn't
the place to get into this kind of discussion. The original post has
been
answered with two different solutions, and that's the end of it as far as
I'm concerned. I just bitched someone else out in another NG for exactly
this kind of "mine is bigger than yours" discussion that serves no
purpose
but to bicker pointlessly. Everybody's got their favourite apps and the
apps they think are toys, we simply disagree on which ones are which.





Rob

"Tim Ferguson" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morley" wrote in
:

Obviously someone thought so, or they never would've designed combo
box lookups to work in tables.

There are several things in Access that relegate it into the "toy"
platform in the eyes of other database developers on "real" systems. The
quaint but misguided fashion for putting "tbl" in front of object names
is one; the presence of the "look up field" is another. I regret this
because when you get up close, Jet is a pretty fine database engine and
Access is a flexible and usable rapid development platform, but it will
continue to get a rotten press as long as it's aimed at the Janet and
John level of user. The type of users, in effect, that get drowned in
any
case as soon as they step off the dumb-spreadsheet kind of appliction.

FWIW, it seems that the Access-as-toy party has won the debate because
Jet development is being taken over by the Access UI team. I think it's
time to be off to MySQL before they put in the paper clip telling you
not
to put financial data into an integer field.

What it really comes down to is that each of us has our own opinions
and ways of doing things. Don't get upset with someone just because
they think and work differently than you do.

I get upset because of two things. Firstly, posts like yours may be seen
by people who know about databases but not much about Access, who will
merely have their suspicions confirmed that access is a plaything for
people who don't know their way round Codd or Date. The second reason is
that they may be seen by people who don't know much about Access or
databases, and who will then think this is a good and reasonable way to
use it; and whose horizons will forever be shortened.

All the best


Tim F







  #2  
Old July 12th, 2006, 04:08 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
BruceM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Name things as
you choose. For myself it would be confusing if account-related tables,
queries, forms, and reports all start with the same prefix, but that's just
my preference.

"Robert Morley" wrote in message
...
I still don't buy that this is either product-specific or amateur-specific.
I've seen countless numbers of experienced, formally trained (and who
learned it on their own) database programmers on every platform I've ever
used who use "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views, "usp" for user stored
procedures, not to mention "frm" for forms, "rpt" for reports, etc., ad
nauseum.

Personally, I don't see the point of starting ALL objects in a category
with the same letters; that's generally redundant (though occasionally
useful when you're trying to distinguish between views and tables, etc.).
My general preference is to base it around the function of the object.
"acct" for account-related tables, "resp" for respondent-related tables,
"list" for simple lookup-type tables, etc. Only for objects that don't
have a significant inter-relationship with the rest of the database (i.e.,
localization tables, user preferences, etc.) do I use the generic "tbl",
"frm", or whatever.

And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article
in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said,
Simonyi Károly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he
started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. It's
hardly a surprise that it later appeared in a Microsoft product that he
worked on. Hell, ignore Hungarian notation for a moment, how long ago did
people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first
constructs I learned almost 30 years ago.


Rob

"Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote in
message ...
Oh and just for the record, Hungarian Notation became popular with
languages like VB/VBA, but actually pre-dates it. The inventor, Simonyi
Károly, was working for Xerox at the time and only much later did he
move
to Microsoft.


For the record "tbl" and other such fripperies first appeared in a 1993
Smart Access article and has subsequently appeared in the ADH books. I
don't
mind one using tags in code but not for database objects. Charles Simonyi
actually worked on Access 1; I am not sure what he thinks of the
Lesynski/Reddick extensions.

It is a good sign of an amateur with limited experience of other
products.
Some amateurs are very good programmers though.

Nearly all formally trained Relational (or SQL) Database designers would
find this "tbl" tag laughable.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

"Robert Morley" wrote in message
...
Like I said, different ways of thinking. I look at most of your points
and disagree with them either in part or in whole, but frankly, this
isn't
the place to get into this kind of discussion. The original post has
been
answered with two different solutions, and that's the end of it as far
as
I'm concerned. I just bitched someone else out in another NG for
exactly
this kind of "mine is bigger than yours" discussion that serves no
purpose
but to bicker pointlessly. Everybody's got their favourite apps and the
apps they think are toys, we simply disagree on which ones are which.





Rob

"Tim Ferguson" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morley" wrote in
:

Obviously someone thought so, or they never would've designed combo
box lookups to work in tables.

There are several things in Access that relegate it into the "toy"
platform in the eyes of other database developers on "real" systems.
The
quaint but misguided fashion for putting "tbl" in front of object names
is one; the presence of the "look up field" is another. I regret this
because when you get up close, Jet is a pretty fine database engine and
Access is a flexible and usable rapid development platform, but it will
continue to get a rotten press as long as it's aimed at the Janet and
John level of user. The type of users, in effect, that get drowned in
any
case as soon as they step off the dumb-spreadsheet kind of appliction.

FWIW, it seems that the Access-as-toy party has won the debate because
Jet development is being taken over by the Access UI team. I think it's
time to be off to MySQL before they put in the paper clip telling you
not
to put financial data into an integer field.

What it really comes down to is that each of us has our own opinions
and ways of doing things. Don't get upset with someone just because
they think and work differently than you do.

I get upset because of two things. Firstly, posts like yours may be
seen
by people who know about databases but not much about Access, who will
merely have their suspicions confirmed that access is a plaything for
people who don't know their way round Codd or Date. The second reason
is
that they may be seen by people who don't know much about Access or
databases, and who will then think this is a good and reasonable way to
use it; and whose horizons will forever be shortened.

All the best


Tim F









  #3  
Old July 12th, 2006, 04:12 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Craig Alexander Morrison
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

.....spoke too soon....

See original thread. (vbg)

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited
"BruceM" wrote in message
...
If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Name things as
you choose. For myself it would be confusing if account-related tables,
queries, forms, and reports all start with the same prefix, but that's
just my preference.

"Robert Morley" wrote in message
...
I still don't buy that this is either product-specific or
amateur-specific. I've seen countless numbers of experienced, formally
trained (and who learned it on their own) database programmers on every
platform I've ever used who use "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views, "usp"
for user stored procedures, not to mention "frm" for forms, "rpt" for
reports, etc., ad nauseum.

Personally, I don't see the point of starting ALL objects in a category
with the same letters; that's generally redundant (though occasionally
useful when you're trying to distinguish between views and tables, etc.).
My general preference is to base it around the function of the object.
"acct" for account-related tables, "resp" for respondent-related tables,
"list" for simple lookup-type tables, etc. Only for objects that don't
have a significant inter-relationship with the rest of the database
(i.e., localization tables, user preferences, etc.) do I use the generic
"tbl", "frm", or whatever.

And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article
in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said,
Simonyi Károly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he
started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. It's
hardly a surprise that it later appeared in a Microsoft product that he
worked on. Hell, ignore Hungarian notation for a moment, how long ago did
people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first
constructs I learned almost 30 years ago.


Rob

"Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote in
message ...
Oh and just for the record, Hungarian Notation became popular with
languages like VB/VBA, but actually pre-dates it. The inventor,
Simonyi
Károly, was working for Xerox at the time and only much later did he
move
to Microsoft.

For the record "tbl" and other such fripperies first appeared in a 1993
Smart Access article and has subsequently appeared in the ADH books. I
don't
mind one using tags in code but not for database objects. Charles
Simonyi
actually worked on Access 1; I am not sure what he thinks of the
Lesynski/Reddick extensions.

It is a good sign of an amateur with limited experience of other
products.
Some amateurs are very good programmers though.

Nearly all formally trained Relational (or SQL) Database designers would
find this "tbl" tag laughable.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

"Robert Morley" wrote in message
...
Like I said, different ways of thinking. I look at most of your points
and disagree with them either in part or in whole, but frankly, this
isn't
the place to get into this kind of discussion. The original post has
been
answered with two different solutions, and that's the end of it as far
as
I'm concerned. I just bitched someone else out in another NG for
exactly
this kind of "mine is bigger than yours" discussion that serves no
purpose
but to bicker pointlessly. Everybody's got their favourite apps and
the
apps they think are toys, we simply disagree on which ones are which.





Rob

"Tim Ferguson" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morley" wrote in
:

Obviously someone thought so, or they never would've designed combo
box lookups to work in tables.

There are several things in Access that relegate it into the "toy"
platform in the eyes of other database developers on "real" systems.
The
quaint but misguided fashion for putting "tbl" in front of object
names
is one; the presence of the "look up field" is another. I regret this
because when you get up close, Jet is a pretty fine database engine
and
Access is a flexible and usable rapid development platform, but it
will
continue to get a rotten press as long as it's aimed at the Janet and
John level of user. The type of users, in effect, that get drowned in
any
case as soon as they step off the dumb-spreadsheet kind of appliction.

FWIW, it seems that the Access-as-toy party has won the debate because
Jet development is being taken over by the Access UI team. I think
it's
time to be off to MySQL before they put in the paper clip telling you
not
to put financial data into an integer field.

What it really comes down to is that each of us has our own opinions
and ways of doing things. Don't get upset with someone just because
they think and work differently than you do.

I get upset because of two things. Firstly, posts like yours may be
seen
by people who know about databases but not much about Access, who will
merely have their suspicions confirmed that access is a plaything for
people who don't know their way round Codd or Date. The second reason
is
that they may be seen by people who don't know much about Access or
databases, and who will then think this is a good and reasonable way
to
use it; and whose horizons will forever be shortened.

All the best


Tim F











  #4  
Old July 12th, 2006, 04:15 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Robert Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

Because my professional pride hates being insulted by being called an
amateur even more than I hate being drawn into pointless debates.


Rob

"BruceM" wrote in message
...
If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Name things as
you choose. For myself it would be confusing if account-related tables,
queries, forms, and reports all start with the same prefix, but that's
just my preference.




  #5  
Old July 12th, 2006, 04:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Sylvain Lafontaine
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 528
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

Like everything else in the world, to much is like not enough. When writing
some piece of code, you must write it in a way that will convey the maximum
quantity of useful information to the programmer but without cluttering the
whole thing, because at this point the process will become
counter-productive: instead of diminishing the possibility for the
programmer of writing a bug, it will increase it.

« how long ago did people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one
of the first constructs I learned almost 30 years ago. »

For those interested, this old notation came from the first commercial
version of Fortran and had then a functional purpose: all variables
beginning with one of the letters i, j, k, l, m and n (taken from the
enumeration i .. n corresponding to the first two letters of the word
INteger) were automatically declared to be of type integer and all others
were dimensionned as float by default.

In fact, in Fortran 4, I'm not even sure if you could dimension a variable
beginning with one of the letters i .. n to *not* be an integer. (Since my
old manual of Fortran 4 is gone since a very long time, I can't no longer
verify this point.) In Fortran 5, you can easily declare one of these
variables to not be an integer but still, if you don't say otherwise, they
will be of type integer by default.

--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF


"Robert Morley" wrote in message
...
I still don't buy that this is either product-specific or amateur-specific.
I've seen countless numbers of experienced, formally trained (and who
learned it on their own) database programmers on every platform I've ever
used who use "tbl" for tables, "vw" for views, "usp" for user stored
procedures, not to mention "frm" for forms, "rpt" for reports, etc., ad
nauseum.

Personally, I don't see the point of starting ALL objects in a category
with the same letters; that's generally redundant (though occasionally
useful when you're trying to distinguish between views and tables, etc.).
My general preference is to base it around the function of the object.
"acct" for account-related tables, "resp" for respondent-related tables,
"list" for simple lookup-type tables, etc. Only for objects that don't
have a significant inter-relationship with the rest of the database (i.e.,
localization tables, user preferences, etc.) do I use the generic "tbl",
"frm", or whatever.

And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access article
in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that. As I said,
Simonyi Károly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at Microsoft, but he
started Hungarian Notation back when he was working for Xerox. It's
hardly a surprise that it later appeared in a Microsoft product that he
worked on. Hell, ignore Hungarian notation for a moment, how long ago did
people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was one of the first
constructs I learned almost 30 years ago.


Rob

"Craig Alexander Morrison" wrote in
message ...
Oh and just for the record, Hungarian Notation became popular with
languages like VB/VBA, but actually pre-dates it. The inventor, Simonyi
Károly, was working for Xerox at the time and only much later did he
move
to Microsoft.


For the record "tbl" and other such fripperies first appeared in a 1993
Smart Access article and has subsequently appeared in the ADH books. I
don't
mind one using tags in code but not for database objects. Charles Simonyi
actually worked on Access 1; I am not sure what he thinks of the
Lesynski/Reddick extensions.

It is a good sign of an amateur with limited experience of other
products.
Some amateurs are very good programmers though.

Nearly all formally trained Relational (or SQL) Database designers would
find this "tbl" tag laughable.

--
Slainte

Craig Alexander Morrison
Crawbridge Data (Scotland) Limited

"Robert Morley" wrote in message
...
Like I said, different ways of thinking. I look at most of your points
and disagree with them either in part or in whole, but frankly, this
isn't
the place to get into this kind of discussion. The original post has
been
answered with two different solutions, and that's the end of it as far
as
I'm concerned. I just bitched someone else out in another NG for
exactly
this kind of "mine is bigger than yours" discussion that serves no
purpose
but to bicker pointlessly. Everybody's got their favourite apps and the
apps they think are toys, we simply disagree on which ones are which.





Rob

"Tim Ferguson" wrote in message
...
"Robert Morley" wrote in
:

Obviously someone thought so, or they never would've designed combo
box lookups to work in tables.

There are several things in Access that relegate it into the "toy"
platform in the eyes of other database developers on "real" systems.
The
quaint but misguided fashion for putting "tbl" in front of object names
is one; the presence of the "look up field" is another. I regret this
because when you get up close, Jet is a pretty fine database engine and
Access is a flexible and usable rapid development platform, but it will
continue to get a rotten press as long as it's aimed at the Janet and
John level of user. The type of users, in effect, that get drowned in
any
case as soon as they step off the dumb-spreadsheet kind of appliction.

FWIW, it seems that the Access-as-toy party has won the debate because
Jet development is being taken over by the Access UI team. I think it's
time to be off to MySQL before they put in the paper clip telling you
not
to put financial data into an integer field.

What it really comes down to is that each of us has our own opinions
and ways of doing things. Don't get upset with someone just because
they think and work differently than you do.

I get upset because of two things. Firstly, posts like yours may be
seen
by people who know about databases but not much about Access, who will
merely have their suspicions confirmed that access is a plaything for
people who don't know their way round Codd or Date. The second reason
is
that they may be seen by people who don't know much about Access or
databases, and who will then think this is a good and reasonable way to
use it; and whose horizons will forever be shortened.

All the best


Tim F









  #6  
Old July 12th, 2006, 04:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Robert Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

Is that where we get it from? I never knew! Apparently you've been
programming even longer than I have!


Rob

"Sylvain Lafontaine" sylvain aei ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)
wrote in message ...
« how long ago did people start using "i" for integer? "For i = " was
one of the first constructs I learned almost 30 years ago. »

For those interested, this old notation came from the first commercial
version of Fortran and had then a functional purpose: all variables
beginning with one of the letters i, j, k, l, m and n (taken from the
enumeration i .. n corresponding to the first two letters of the word
INteger) were automatically declared to be of type integer and all others
were dimensionned as float by default.

In fact, in Fortran 4, I'm not even sure if you could dimension a variable
beginning with one of the letters i .. n to *not* be an integer. (Since
my old manual of Fortran 4 is gone since a very long time, I can't no
longer verify this point.) In Fortran 5, you can easily declare one of
these variables to not be an integer but still, if you don't say
otherwise, they will be of type integer by default.

--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF



  #7  
Old July 12th, 2006, 04:45 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Robert Morley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 113
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

Like everything else in the world, to much is like not enough. When
writing some piece of code, you must write it in a way that will convey
the maximum quantity of useful information to the programmer but without
cluttering the whole thing, because at this point the process will become
counter-productive: instead of diminishing the possibility for the
programmer of writing a bug, it will increase it.


Actually, I found a hilarious web page about that by yet another Canadian:
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/unmainnaming.html


  #8  
Old July 12th, 2006, 07:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
BruceM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 356
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

I looked through the other thread. I have to say I'm puzzled that a naming
convention would sort of cheapen the program in the view of some. I'm not
clear if those who think poorly of using prefixes for objects would prefer
no naming convention at all, or what exactly, but in any case it seems in
rather a different category than lookup fields in tables.
When I first started learning about Access I was taught to put prefixes onto
fields (txt for a Text field, dat for Date/Time, and like that), but I soon
discovered that I much prefer to use prefixes for controls in particular. I
also use them prefixes objects, so I therefore know that if it does not have
a prefix it is a field. Works for me, even if it offends some.
Best regards.

"Robert Morley" wrote in message
...
Because my professional pride hates being insulted by being called an
amateur even more than I hate being drawn into pointless debates.


Rob

"BruceM" wrote in message
...
If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them? Name things as
you choose. For myself it would be confusing if account-related tables,
queries, forms, and reports all start with the same prefix, but that's
just my preference.






  #9  
Old July 12th, 2006, 08:48 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
Tim Ferguson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (moved from Combo Box Requery thread)

"Robert Morley" wrote in
:

And while "tbl" itself may have first appeared in a Smart Access
article in 1993, as I said, Hungarian notation itself pre-dates that.
As I said, Simonyi K*roly (aka Charles Simonyi) did indeed work at
Microsoft, but he started Hungarian Notation back when he was working
for Xerox.


For a good description of the history of "systems Hungarian" and its
misapplication see Joel on Softwa

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html

Tim F

  #10  
Old July 12th, 2006, 10:11 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.adp.sqlserver,microsoft.public.access.tablesdbdesign
mnature
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Pointless debates on the finer points of naming your objects (

"BruceM" wrote:

If the debates are pointless, why are you adding to them?


Arguing with programmers is like wrestling with a pig in the mud.

After a few hours, you realize that the pig likes it.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Update combo box in subform (After Update event) Karl Using Forms 10 April 4th, 2006 07:45 PM
Looking for a recent thread on multple combo boxes potter Using Forms 7 February 28th, 2006 04:31 AM
Requery Combobox MJ Running & Setting Up Queries 7 May 25th, 2004 11:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 OfficeFrustration.
The comments are property of their posters.