I've been banned from UtterAccess

strive4peace wrote in
:

you used a strong term before the word 'stupid' -- Chris got it
right, but I will not say it...

"Bloody stupid" is what I recall, but I could recall wrong, It is,
of course, impossible to say, since it's been deleted from UA.

I don't know where you get any kind of anti-woman connotation from
that, unless you're completely ignorant of the origin of the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody

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

strive4peace wrote in
:

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.

Well, of *course* they are not there with ACCDB because ACCDB does
not support replication. Your comment really doesn't make sense --
you say you can use it programattically, but if you're using ACCDB,
you can't use it programatically, either because ACCDB doesn't
support replication.

Perhaps you are thinking of having an ACCDB front end to a
replicated MDB back end, but that doesn't make any sense, either,
because the menus *never* worked on a back end from the front end.
Just because they would be there in an unreplicated front end
doesn't mean you can use them to synchronize the replicated back
end.

So, it seems to me you were just spouting off without knowing what
the hell you are talking about.

But if you are using an MDB with replication, why use 2007?

MDB is a native format for Access 2007.

Let me say that again:

MDB is a native format in Access 2007.

You might choose to use it because you require ULS or Replication.

While SharePoint is in its infancy, Microsoft is building its
capabilities and it will become quite impressive

It has no future to truly replace the functionality of Jet
Replication unless they completely abandon and replace the current
Sharepoint schema (this is the source of the lack of RI). This is
just not going to happen -- they are already committed to it and
have already built too much on top of it.

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

Hi David,

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.

"A wise man learns more from a fool than a fool from a wise man."
– M.P.Cato

Warm Regards,
Crystal

Microsoft MVP, Access

*
(: have an awesome day
*



David W. Fenton wrote:
strive4peace wrote in
:

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.

Well, of *course* they are not there with ACCDB because ACCDB does
not support replication. Your comment really doesn't make sense --
you say you can use it programattically, but if you're using ACCDB,
you can't use it programatically, either because ACCDB doesn't
support replication.

Perhaps you are thinking of having an ACCDB front end to a
replicated MDB back end, but that doesn't make any sense, either,
because the menus *never* worked on a back end from the front end.
Just because they would be there in an unreplicated front end
doesn't mean you can use them to synchronize the replicated back
end.

So, it seems to me you were just spouting off without knowing what
the hell you are talking about.

But if you are using an MDB with replication, why use 2007?

MDB is a native format for Access 2007.

Let me say that again:

MDB is a native format in Access 2007.

You might choose to use it because you require ULS or Replication.

While SharePoint is in its infancy, Microsoft is building its
capabilities and it will become quite impressive

It has no future to truly replace the functionality of Jet
Replication unless they completely abandon and replace the current
Sharepoint schema (this is the source of the lack of RI). This is
just not going to happen -- they are already committed to it and
have already built too much on top of it.

"Oh give me attention. I'm right! I'm correct! No one can possibly be more
correct than I! And do not oppose me or I will killfile your response and
keep my head burried in the sands of my own self-consideration. How dare I
ever be booted from any forum where my expertise is supreme.Did I mention
how right and correct I am?"

Basically David, that's how it comes across. You claim to be professional,
yet come whining across the forums to publicly ridicule another forum (and
others) that do good in the world community. I and others find THAT
(behavior - not you) quite unprofessional.

So just quit pretending you're not being personal in your afronts and own
up to the stir you've generated. Please do not treat rudeness as if it were
a virtue. Perhaps you would doing us all a favor and just stop posting
about it and let the rest of us exhaust our rants and move on.

Moo


"David W. Fenton" wrote in
36.89:
Not possible. I disagree at a basic level with the philosophy behind
UA's moderating policy, which I consider to be damaging to good
discourse.

The answer to offensive speech is MORE SPEECH, not silencing those
who are impolite.

The answer to "your advice is stupid" is a post showing why the
advice is not stupid.

Seeking an apology for calling stupid advice stupid is damaging to
the quality of discussion, and that shows me that UA cannot be
considered a useful source of reliable information.

strive4peace wrote in
:

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.

What part of "MDB is a native format for A2007" is unclear here? Why
is it such a stumbling block? Did everyone abandon A2000 format when
A2002 came out? No, because A2000 was a native format for A2002.
Likewise with A2003.

And, drumroll please, likewise with A2007.

No difference.

None.

Except for the addition of a new file format with very little to
recommend it -- database passwords, even if nice and strong, are
useless, and I can't think of a situation where a
professionally-developed app should be using multi-value fields.
Otherwise, what is there in this new format that is so wonderful
that it should compel developers to switch to it.

SharePoint does not work like replication -- but no one said it
did!

Microsoft is pushing it as the technology to replace replication in
distributing Access data files, so from their point of view, it does
"work like replication," even though it naturally doesn't use the
same technologies.

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.

Until full-fledged Sharepoint comes with every copy of Windows
Server, I won't recommend its use to any clients because I don't
want their apps to have outside dependencies that cost extra money.
Most of my clients are too small to even *have* a server.

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.

I've written code to synchronize databases in a master/slave
relationship, and it's VERY VERY HARD. It's also very inefficient.

The cases where I did it were either not networkable or it was
between two different databases, so replication was not an option.
Had it been an option, I would have used it in a heartbeat, rather
than writing all that code.

You seem too interested in putting others down

You seem interested in defending Microsoft at all costs, even when
you don't know what you're talking about (as with the comments about
the A2007 UI and replication).

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.

I agree. I never should have contributed anything to UA as it's a
forum based on principles I find repellant.

And whatever discussion took place behind the scense, all I got was
an order to apologize. Had I been asked to edit the post to make it
less harsh, I probably would have done so and none of this would
have happened.

So, it seems to me that the process is broken at UA, too much aimed
towards being combative with anyone who is slightly impolite, as
opposed to working with the "offender" to make things better. What
happened here seems to me "courtesy for you, carte blanche for us."

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.

Here's a free clue: I'm not posting to stroke your ego or make you
feel good.

Why not just leave
stuff like that out? Or word it in a way that is not offensive?

How am I supposed to guess what you are going to think is offensive?
And why should I give up my ability to post strongly-worded
responses just because you might take offense?

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 ...

No, if they say STUPID things I plonk them.

so you are eliminating valuable resources as
well. It all seems so silly -- when everyone is nice, this is not
an issue.

There's plenty of "nice" in the world and not nearly enough
competence.

You're nice, but as to your spouting off about replication in A2007,
you're incompetent.

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

Hi David,

well, I wasn't going to engage with you again. You are right -- I
posted something that did not make much sense. You got under my skin
and I clicked Send before I calmed down enough to think clearly. That
makes me human, not incompetent.

so from their point of view, it does "work like replication"

I disagree -- you have no idea what their point of view is -- or anyone
else's for that matter

"You seem interested in defending Microsoft"

Yes, I do. I have had the fortunate opportunity to meet folks that work
there and have found each and every one of them to be incredibly
intelligent and interested in what others have to say. They listen.
They implement many of our ideas. Microsoft is a great because their
people are great.

Speaking of which, here is a link written about about Utter Access in
the Microsoft Access Team Blog

UtterAccess, the web 2.0 social learning platform for Access developers
http://blogs.msdn.com/access/archive...evelopers.aspx

"You're nice"

thank you, David, I do try...

Warm Regards,
Crystal

Microsoft MVP, Access

*
(: have an awesome day
*




David W. Fenton wrote:
strive4peace wrote in
:

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.

What part of "MDB is a native format for A2007" is unclear here? Why
is it such a stumbling block? Did everyone abandon A2000 format when
A2002 came out? No, because A2000 was a native format for A2002.
Likewise with A2003.

And, drumroll please, likewise with A2007.

No difference.

None.

Except for the addition of a new file format with very little to
recommend it -- database passwords, even if nice and strong, are
useless, and I can't think of a situation where a
professionally-developed app should be using multi-value fields.
Otherwise, what is there in this new format that is so wonderful
that it should compel developers to switch to it.

SharePoint does not work like replication -- but no one said it
did!

Microsoft is pushing it as the technology to replace replication in
distributing Access data files, so from their point of view, it does
"work like replication," even though it naturally doesn't use the
same technologies.

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.

Until full-fledged Sharepoint comes with every copy of Windows
Server, I won't recommend its use to any clients because I don't
want their apps to have outside dependencies that cost extra money.
Most of my clients are too small to even *have* a server.

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.

I've written code to synchronize databases in a master/slave
relationship, and it's VERY VERY HARD. It's also very inefficient.

The cases where I did it were either not networkable or it was
between two different databases, so replication was not an option.
Had it been an option, I would have used it in a heartbeat, rather
than writing all that code.

You seem too interested in putting others down

You seem interested in defending Microsoft at all costs, even when
you don't know what you're talking about (as with the comments about
the A2007 UI and replication).

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.

I agree. I never should have contributed anything to UA as it's a
forum based on principles I find repellant.

And whatever discussion took place behind the scense, all I got was
an order to apologize. Had I been asked to edit the post to make it
less harsh, I probably would have done so and none of this would
have happened.

So, it seems to me that the process is broken at UA, too much aimed
towards being combative with anyone who is slightly impolite, as
opposed to working with the "offender" to make things better. What
happened here seems to me "courtesy for you, carte blanche for us."

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.

Here's a free clue: I'm not posting to stroke your ego or make you
feel good.

Why not just leave
stuff like that out? Or word it in a way that is not offensive?

How am I supposed to guess what you are going to think is offensive?
And why should I give up my ability to post strongly-worded
responses just because you might take offense?

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 ...

No, if they say STUPID things I plonk them.

so you are eliminating valuable resources as
well. It all seems so silly -- when everyone is nice, this is not
an issue.

There's plenty of "nice" in the world and not nearly enough
competence.

You're nice, but as to your spouting off about replication in A2007,
you're incompetent.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS JET REPLICATION






On Mar 20, 8:08*pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
argeedblu wrote
m:

As the UA Administrator who banned you I want to make it clear
that you were not banned because of your technical information.
You were banned because the tone of your response showed complete
dis-respect for your (then) fellow member.

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.

At UA, we believe that respect and
technical expertise should go hand in hand.

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.

We strive to ensure that
members maintain that respect in each and every post. Many people
turn to UA because they find the tone of at least some of the
content in many newsgroups, including this one, just plain
offensive.

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.

One of our members put it this way quote Those links are very
good reminders of why I do NOT search the newsgroups for help any
more. This attitude of "stupid suggestions deserve to be called
stupid" would be easy to write off as another form of "I'm
virtually anonymous online, so I'm going to be rude in ways I
can't be in person". end quote

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.

The same member, specifically referring to you, went on to say,
quote He may be brilliant, but there are plenty of other equally
brilliant people who know that civility costs nothing. Finally,
the suggestion that UA is just for beginners looking for
beginner-level help is just name-calling - a famous last recourse
for less-than- intelligent peopleend quote

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.

Although it is not easy to do so, I am suggesting that you take a
moment to see yourself as others see you. Consider this remark:
quote There's a difference between someone who spends time online
to
HELPING people, and someone who uses their experience/knowlege to
BELITTLE people in the GUISE of providing assistance. end quote

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.

A response in this thread referred to 'calling a spade a spade'
and not being able to do so unless it is sugar-coated. That is not
quite the case. At UA we welcome people to call spades, spades. We
simple insist that they not coat their remarks with layers of
unnecessary and insulting invective.

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.

We do not want the tone of UA's discussions to
degenerate to the level that is all too frequently demonstrated in
unmoderated newsgroups.

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 note that there is at least one reply in
this thread that would would immediatly bring a warning and
ultimate banning from UA for the poster in question. We cannot
dictate the language and content of the Internet but we can and do
control the language and content of our forum.

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.

So David, I wish you well in your future endeavours. Your
technical expertise will be missed at UA. Your style of presenting
that expertise will not.

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.

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

ACCESS REPLICATION WORKS FOR ME BECAUSE I USE ADP.
I also have database mirroring and database snapshots.

Do you?

ACCESSS REPLICATION WAS REMOVED FROM ACCESS 2007 (FORMAT) BECAUSE IT
IS NOT RELIABLE ENOUGH.





On Mar 22, 9:47*pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
strive4peace wrote :

While Access 2007 can still work with
replication via code (not available on menus),

YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.

If you open an MDB, you will find replication right there on the
menus, just like it is in previous versions of Access.

This is what drives me completely crazy and makes me call people's
advice stupid -- when you make comments (and give advice) that show
you haven't even bothered to check that what you say is correct.

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

YOU GUYS ARE GETTING FORCE-FED ON SHAREPOINT-- IN OTHER WORDS-- YOU
ARE BEING FORCEFED TWO LAYERS BETWEEN JET AND SQL.

ADP is a much much much better option.

and no-- sharePoint is NOT in its infancy.
Microsoft just keeps on changing their focus with sharepoint.
Microsoft just keeps on changing their focus with sharepoint.
Microsoft just keeps on changing their focus with sharepoint.

If MS took DAP and made SharePoint into a repository for DAP-- we all
would have been happy a decade ago.

-Aaron


On Mar 22, 10:18*pm, strive4peace wrote:
Hi David,

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 -- wish I could share
things that I know but I cannot... all I can say is that Microsoft is
listening ,,, if you have some good ideas, you should tell them. *If you
do not have a contact and wish to send your ideas to me, I will pass
them along, with your contact information in case they have questions
for you.

Warm Regards,
Crystal

* *
* * (: have an awesome day
* *



David W. Fenton wrote:
strive4peace wrote in
:

While Access 2007 can still work with
replication via code (not available on menus),

YOU ARE COMPLETELY WRONG.

If you open an MDB, you will find replication right there on the
menus, just like it is in previous versions of Access.

This is what drives me completely crazy and makes me call people's
advice stupid -- when you make comments (and give advice) that show
you haven't even bothered to check that what you say is correct.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

MDB IS NOT A NATIVE FORMAT OF ACCESS 2007.

ADP IS THE MOST POPULAR FORMAT IN ACCESS 2000, 2002 and 2003. AND
2007.



On Mar 23, 5:25*pm, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
strive4peace wrote :

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.

Well, of *course* they are not there with ACCDB because ACCDB does
not support replication. Your comment really doesn't make sense --
you say you can use it programattically, but if you're using ACCDB,
you can't use it programatically, either because ACCDB doesn't
support replication.

Perhaps you are thinking of having an ACCDB front end to a
replicated MDB back end, but that doesn't make any sense, either,
because the menus *never* worked on a back end from the front end.
Just because they would be there in an unreplicated front end
doesn't mean you can use them to synchronize the replicated back
end.

So, it seems to me you were just spouting off without knowing what
the hell you are talking about.

*But if you are using an MDB with replication, why use 2007?

MDB is a native format for Access 2007.

Let me say that again:

MDB is a native format in Access 2007.

You might choose to use it because you require ULS or Replication.

While SharePoint is in its infancy, Microsoft is building its
capabilities and it will become quite impressive

It has no future to truly replace the functionality of Jet
Replication unless they completely abandon and replace the current
Sharepoint schema (this is the source of the lack of RI). This is
just not going to happen -- they are already committed to it and
have already built too much on top of it.

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