The Next Step

Get a grip, man. It's software, not an object of veneration. In an odd
sort of way your obsession becomes a bit more comprehensible now that I know
it is actually religious zealotry, but this is a truly disturbing
development. There is nothing more to say to you.

wrote in message
...
Bruce;

I'm a strange man
In a strange land

But it doesn't make me _WRONG_.

It just means that I _STILL_ need to spread the good word.
Do you honestly think that you can talk me out of my religion? My
religion is better than your piece of crap JET database.

It is my religous right to proclaim anything that I want- involving
SQL Server.

I go to the church of ADP.

And you're bickering _WHY_? I'm reccomending what the user is asking
for-- they are asking for SQL Server.

Sorry- but your misinformation and personal attacks won't scare me
away.
I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
office use the application. The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Aaron


On Apr 14, 8:25 am, "BruceM" wrote:
I know they don't want you in the SQL Server newsgroups either, but please
go away. Nobody will miss you. The OP asked an Access question in an
Access group. That's all. Your responses continually show you do not read
the questions. You want everybody to think like you do, yet you are
opposed
to groupthink. If your approach to SQL is as devoid of logic as is that
line of reasoning it is no wonder you have so much time on your hands.
Shoo.

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote
in
...
the OP specifically asked for SQL Server. kid.

You think that _I_ am using groupthink-- just because I AM THE ONLY
ONE HERE WITH THE BALLS TO RECCOMEND A DECENT ARCHITECTURE?

How am _I_ using groupthink?

You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.
You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.
You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.

Yes-- you are right. I think that anyone
_BUILDING_AN_ALTERNATIVE_TO_QUICKEN_ should use SQL Server.

Just like the OP is asking for.

I have not addressed your observations that wireless; dialup or other
connections may not be available in the field?

How about this, Bruce??!!??
--------------
And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.
--------------

Does replication not allow for offline use?

I tell you-- replication with SQL Server looks a _LOT_ better than
offline support with SharePoint lists-- because that is what is
getting jammed down your throats.

It's like-- get this..
a) microsoft tries to wean you kids off of Access and into SQL Server
b) because SQL Server _ROCKS_
c) Microsoft does it for a decade
d) says 'anyone else still _STUPID_ enough to be using Jet can get
conned into SharePoint.

So which is it, Bruce.

Do you want to be swimming in SharePoint or SQL Server?
Do you want to be swimming in SQL Server _DIRECTLY_ or do you want to
be swimming in SharePoint (yet another layer) on top of SQL Server?

Which is it kid; one layer or three? (SharePoint really counts as 2
layers in itself)

-Aaron

On Apr 14, 7:14 am, "BruceM" wrote:



You have not paid any attention to the OP's statements about how the
database will be used. You have not addressed my observations that
wireless, dial-up, or other connections may not be available in the
field,
except to suggest that database replication should be used. You think
the
entire customer base of Quicken or any other app should store their data
on
a single giant server somewhere, based on nothing more than your
insistence
that SQL Server is the only possible way to store any data ever. You
want
the world to march in lockstep behind your SQL Server banner, thereby
advocating the very Groupthink you claim to condemn. SQL Server has its
uses, as has been pointed out to you over and over, but you are the one
who
would ban all discussion about anything else.
Please go away.

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote
in
...
and yes-- quicken should be using SQL Server.

Any data that is mission critical shouldn't use a piece of crap JET
database.

No matter how popular it is here-- in the backwater of the database
world-- that doesn't mean that JET is the optimal answer- or an
acceptable answer- anywhere.

People like you- who engage in GROUPTHINK- are the types of idiots
that voted for Hitler.

SQL Server is easier, better- more secure. More portable. More
functional.

Just because your database DOES NOT SUPPORT VPN, Wireless, Dialup or
WAN-- does that mean that ADP is the wrong answer?

And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.

Maybe that's why I'm the only certified person on this whole
newsgroup-- Maybe _THAT_ is why I am one of the most vocal proponents
of SQL Server.

-Aaron

On Apr 14, 4:39 am, "BruceM" wrote:

I thought you had gone away. I understand why you can't use an alias
like
you have in the the past, but why the extra spaces in your name? Did
you
get booted out, and this is how you are getting past that limitation?
For all of your professed prowess at SQL server you post very little
in
those newsgroups that I can see, and when you do it it either to ask
questions or to insult somebody.
From your reasoning, a program such as Quicken should have everybody's
financial information on a single central server rather than on each
user's
individual computer. Never mind in either the case of the software
that
is
the original subject of this thread or Quicken that not every user is
on
line all the time (an inspector in the field at a fire-damaged
property
may
not have a ready way of getting on line, for instance); that in a lot
of
locations the only internet option is dial-up; and that as stated over
and
over in this thread, the users do not need or want to share data.
I know I said I wasn't going to attempt to reason with you, but your
fallacies of reasoning that lead you to see SQL server and ADP as the
answer
to every situation are so blatant that an observation or two seems
worth
the
effort.
Go ahead and be predictable now. No point in original thought at this
late
stage.

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote
in
...
Just because Amazon.com sells things to 10,000 different customers--
does that mean that they should have 10,000 different databases?

Come on kids.

Yes; there are some reasons to have a duplicated schema.
The punchline is this-- having 500 databases on a single server is 100
times more managable than 1500 different databases on 50 different
states

I would personally do it all in one database.

Because that would be much simpler.

You see-- if you used SQL Server; you wouldn't have to rewrite it
every 6 months.
What if you have 500 copies and 10 of the people cross the TWENTY FIVE
MEGABYTE LIMIT of MS Access??

-Aaron

On Apr 13, 3:29 pm, "Pete D." wrote:

Why would Limestone Maine investigator care to share data with Tampa
Florida
investigator that doesn't even work for the same company and is
independent.
Have you read any of this at all?

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote
in
...
John;

I disagree. It is 500 CUSTOMERS WHO BELONG IN A SINGLE DATABASE.
It's not very hard to do. Does it really make sense to have 500
copies of the same database? What about when you want to change
things?

Access doesn't support DDL scripts as well as SQL Server does-- so
deployment of remote scripts is painful- to say the least.

Using the existing schema; adding a single column for customerID
would
do the trick.. I think lol.. and then abstract everything in views
so
that you don't have to pass around _ANY_ parameters.

It's quite simple.

Much simpler than having 500 different chickens with their heads cut
off; running around.. like -- well-- chickens with their heads cut
off.

Failing to plan is called planning to fail.
Failing to use SQL Server is called planning to fail.

Keep things simple.

-Aaron

On Apr 12, 9:09 am, "John Marshall, MVP"
wrote:

It is five hundred users using their own copy of the program with
their
OWN
data. The ONLY connection between the five hundred users is the
program,
not
the data. So you believe there should only be one copy of Word and
everyone
should share their documents. Sorry Big Brother, it aint going to
happen.

Aaron, it's time to take your happy pill, so just grow and read
the
questions before posting your mantra.

John... Visio MVP

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"

wrote
in
...
Dude Tony... If you knew how to do basic math-- you might 'get
it'.

500 users with
1)
a) 500 front ends
b) 500 back ends
c) 500 temp db MDBs (ROFL what a joke!)

or

2)
a) 500 front ends
b) 1 or 5 or 50 or 500 back end databases.

So which is less.. 1500? or 501?

Come on Tony; you really must learn to give up on that linked
table
crap.. Linked tables are no longer the reccomended method for
working
with any database.

-Aaron

On Apr 10, 3:37 pm, "Tony Toews [MVP]"
wrote:

" wrote:
For 500 independend installations; single user-- they need a
frontend
backend?

Sounds to me like SQL Server is a much simpler architecture.

No it's not. You obviously haven't understood her question.

Tony
--
Tony Toews, Microsoft Access MVP
Please respond only in the newsgroups so that others can
read the entire thread of messages.
Microsoft Access Links, Hints, Tips & Accounting Systems
athttp://www.granite.ab.ca/accsmstr.htm

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 14, 11:34*am, wrote:
I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
office use the application. The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------

-Aaron

OK Back to the Topic!!!

The application is already a split Database with a Front End and a
Back End. Which means that the application is already available for
the entire office. It has the functionallity for a small Multi-User
environment which is what it is built for and the target customer.

The world moves around $. And it's usually the best way to really put
things in perspective.

We know that the application is working great. No issues with the
customers and they are satisfied. The application will sell to new
customers regardless of what's behind the code. Customer really
doesn't need to know how it works or what the backend.

This means that switching to SQL Server will _NOT_ increase the profit
of the Application. It will _Not_ sell more. In fact, maybe you might
sell to a few more. So that may be 3-5 new customers.

But, Then, what is the cost of switching to SQL server? You say it's
Nil. That is false. UNless you can switch in 0 hours, 0 minutes, you
are incurring in costs.

This line of bussiness charges around $70 to $200 dollars an hour. If
it takes 5 hours to make switch, which i highly doubt it. It will
probably be costing your application around $700 - $1000 USD. And what
about the investment. The creator of the application probably doesn't
have the experience in SQL Server, so then they would have to invest
time on that or even take a course. Whats that, some 20 - 40 hours?
That ranges a cost of about $3,000 to $6,000.

In best case scenario, you would have to sell the application at
$1,000 a piece just to cover your costs. I don't think this
application sells at such a high price. Id guess around $300 USD.
(lets not think if its simply $49.99). You would requiere 14 new
customers that will not buy your app unless it has a SQL back end just
to break even Profit of switching to SQL Server.

- GL

PS:
Q: How do you cross a camel through the eye of a needle?
A: Switch to SQL Server.

Bruce, don't stand downwind of someone who amuses himself by spitting into
the wind every chance he gets.

Chris
Microsoft MVP


BruceM wrote:
Get a grip, man. It's software, not an object of veneration. In an odd
sort of way your obsession becomes a bit more comprehensible now that I know
it is actually religious zealotry, but this is a truly disturbing
development. There is nothing more to say to you.

On Apr 14, 8:34 am, "" wrote:
Bruce;

I'm a strange man

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200804/1

"There is nothing more to say to you" sums it up, I think.

"Chris O'C via AccessMonster.com" u29189@uwe wrote in message
news:82ac71b7db8ee@uwe...
Bruce, don't stand downwind of someone who amuses himself by spitting into
the wind every chance he gets.

Chris
Microsoft MVP


BruceM wrote:
Get a grip, man. It's software, not an object of veneration. In an odd
sort of way your obsession becomes a bit more comprehensible now that I
know
it is actually religious zealotry, but this is a truly disturbing
development. There is nothing more to say to you.

On Apr 14, 8:34 am, "" wrote:
Bruce;

I'm a strange man

--
Message posted via AccessMonster.com
http://www.accessmonster.com/Uwe/For...ccess/200804/1

listen kid

you're the one that isn't paying any attention to the OP.

she's asking for SQL Server.

I'll reccomend SQL Server wherever _I_ see fit.

_ESPECIALLY_ when they ask for it.

Take your mafia tactics elsewhere; kid
I'm right-- and you're stuck in a midget land with midget sized
databases

-Aaron



On Apr 14, 8:53*am, "BruceM" wrote:
Get a grip, man. *It's software, not an object of veneration. *In an odd
sort of way your obsession becomes a bit more comprehensible now that I know
it is actually religious zealotry, but this is a truly disturbing
development. *There is nothing more to say to you.

wrote in message

...
Bruce;

I'm a strange man
In a strange land

But it doesn't make me _WRONG_.

It just means that I _STILL_ need to spread the good word.
Do you honestly think that you can talk me out of my religion? * My
religion is better than your piece of crap JET database.

It is my religous right to proclaim anything that I want- involving
SQL Server.

I go to the church of ADP.

And you're bickering _WHY_? I'm reccomending what the user is asking
for-- they are asking for SQL Server.

Sorry- but your misinformation and personal attacks won't scare me
away.
I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
* * * office use the application. *The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------

-Aaron

On Apr 14, 8:25 am, "BruceM" wrote:



I know they don't want you in the SQL Server newsgroups either, but please
go away. Nobody will miss you. The OP asked an Access question in an
Access group. That's all. Your responses continually show you do not read
the questions. You want everybody to think like you do, yet you are
opposed
to groupthink. If your approach to SQL is as devoid of logic as is that
line of reasoning it is no wonder you have so much time on your hands.
Shoo.

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m" wrote
in
...
the OP specifically asked for SQL Server. kid.

You think that _I_ am using groupthink-- just because I AM THE ONLY
ONE HERE WITH THE BALLS TO RECCOMEND A DECENT ARCHITECTURE?

How am _I_ using groupthink?

You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.
You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.
You're the jerk that is saying 'Aaron is wrong because everyone else
here uses Jet'.

Yes-- you are right. I think that anyone
_BUILDING_AN_ALTERNATIVE_TO_QUICKEN_ should use SQL Server.

Just like the OP is asking for.

I have not addressed your observations that wireless; dialup or other
connections may not be available in the field?

How about this, Bruce??!!??
--------------
And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.
--------------

Does replication not allow for offline use?

I tell you-- replication with SQL Server looks a _LOT_ better than
offline support with SharePoint lists-- because that is what is
getting jammed down your throats.

It's like-- get this..
a) microsoft tries to wean you kids off of Access and into SQL Server
b) because SQL Server _ROCKS_
c) Microsoft does it for a decade
d) says 'anyone else still _STUPID_ enough to be using Jet can get
conned into SharePoint.

So which is it, Bruce.

Do you want to be swimming in SharePoint or SQL Server?
Do you want to be swimming in SQL Server _DIRECTLY_ or do you want to
be swimming in SharePoint (yet another layer) on top of SQL Server?

Which is it kid; one layer or three? (SharePoint really counts as 2
layers in itself)

-Aaron

On Apr 14, 7:14 am, "BruceM" wrote:

You have not paid any attention to the OP's statements about how the
database will be used. You have not addressed my observations that
wireless, dial-up, or other connections may not be available in the
field,
except to suggest that database replication should be used. You think
the
entire customer base of Quicken or any other app should store their data
on
a single giant server somewhere, based on nothing more than your
insistence
that SQL Server is the only possible way to store any data ever. You
want
the world to march in lockstep behind your SQL Server banner, thereby
advocating the very Groupthink you claim to condemn. SQL Server has its
uses, as has been pointed out to you over and over, but you are the one
who
would ban all discussion about anything else.
Please go away.

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote
in
...
and yes-- quicken should be using SQL Server.

Any data that is mission critical shouldn't use a piece of crap JET
database.

No matter how popular it is here-- in the backwater of the database
world-- that doesn't mean that JET is the optimal answer- or an
acceptable answer- anywhere.

People like you- who engage in GROUPTHINK- are the types of idiots
that voted for Hitler.

SQL Server is easier, better- more secure. More portable. More
functional.

Just because your database DOES NOT SUPPORT VPN, Wireless, Dialup or
WAN-- does that mean that ADP is the wrong answer?

And again-- setting up bulletproof replication using SQL Server is
easy.

Maybe that's why I'm the only certified person on this whole
newsgroup-- Maybe _THAT_ is why I am one of the most vocal proponents
of SQL Server.

-Aaron

On Apr 14, 4:39 am, "BruceM" wrote:

I thought you had gone away. I understand why you can't use an alias
like
you have in the the past, but why the extra spaces in your name? Did
you
get booted out, and this is how you are getting past that limitation?
For all of your professed prowess at SQL server you post very little
in
those newsgroups that I can see, and when you do it it either to ask
questions or to insult somebody.
From your reasoning, a program such as Quicken should have everybody's
financial information on a single central server rather than on each
user's
individual computer. Never mind in either the case of the software
that
is
the original subject of this thread or Quicken that not every user is
on
line all the time (an inspector in the field at a fire-damaged
property
may
not have a ready way of getting on line, for instance); that in a lot
of
locations the only internet option is dial-up; and that as stated over
and
over in this thread, the users do not need or want to share data.
I know I said I wasn't going to attempt to reason with you, but your
fallacies of reasoning that lead you to see SQL server and ADP as the
answer
to every situation are so blatant that an observation or two seems
worth
the
effort.
Go ahead and be predictable now. No point in original thought at this
late
stage.

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote
in
...
Just because Amazon.com sells things to 10,000 different customers--
does that mean that they should have 10,000 different databases?

Come on kids.

Yes; there are some reasons to have a duplicated schema.
The punchline is this-- having 500 databases on a single server is 100
times more managable than 1500 different databases on 50 different
states

I would personally do it all in one database.

Because that would be much simpler.

You see-- if you used SQL Server; you wouldn't have to rewrite it
every 6 months.
What if you have 500 copies and 10 of the people cross the TWENTY FIVE
MEGABYTE LIMIT of MS Access??

-Aaron

On Apr 13, 3:29 pm, "Pete D." wrote:

Why would Limestone Maine investigator care to share data with Tampa
Florida
investigator that doesn't even work for the same company and is
independent.
Have you read any of this at all?

"a a r o n . k e m p f @ g m a i l . c o m"
wrote
in
...
John;

I disagree. It is 500 CUSTOMERS WHO BELONG IN A SINGLE DATABASE.
It's not very hard to do. Does it really make sense to have 500
copies of the same database? What about when you want to change
things?

Access doesn't support DDL scripts as well as SQL Server does-- so
deployment of remote scripts is painful- to say the least.

Using the existing schema; adding a single column for customerID
would
do the trick.. I think lol.. and then abstract everything in views
so
that you don't have to pass around _ANY_ parameters.

It's quite simple.

Much simpler than having 500 different chickens with their heads cut
off; running around.. like -- well-- chickens with their heads cut
off.

Failing to plan is called planning to fail.
Failing to use SQL Server is called planning to fail.

Keep things simple.

-Aaron

On Apr 12, 9:09 am, "John Marshall, MVP"
wrote:

It is five hundred users using their own copy of the program with
their
OWN
data. The ONLY connection between the five hundred users is

...

read more »- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, it does but try to remember that phrase long before you've pulled your
hanky out more than half a dozen times.

Chris
Microsoft MVP


BruceM wrote:
"There is nothing more to say to you" sums it up, I think.

Bruce, don't stand downwind of someone who amuses himself by spitting into
the wind every chance he gets.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]

I'm a strange man

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

Thanks Guillermo,

I believe you must be psychic; the price you surmised is almost spot on; my
SQL Server experience is just about 6 years old now (as in last time I
worked with it) so getting back up to speed would be a 'cost'.

The split Access database app works fine just now. The suggestions posted
in this thread about improvements are all on my Version 2
list...............and upsizing to SQL Server may make some sense, we'll see
then

--
Karen
"Guillermo_Lopez" wrote in message
...
On Apr 14, 11:34 am, wrote:
I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
office use the application. The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------*--------

-Aaron

OK Back to the Topic!!!

The application is already a split Database with a Front End and a
Back End. Which means that the application is already available for
the entire office. It has the functionallity for a small Multi-User
environment which is what it is built for and the target customer.

The world moves around $. And it's usually the best way to really put
things in perspective.

We know that the application is working great. No issues with the
customers and they are satisfied. The application will sell to new
customers regardless of what's behind the code. Customer really
doesn't need to know how it works or what the backend.

This means that switching to SQL Server will _NOT_ increase the profit
of the Application. It will _Not_ sell more. In fact, maybe you might
sell to a few more. So that may be 3-5 new customers.

But, Then, what is the cost of switching to SQL server? You say it's
Nil. That is false. UNless you can switch in 0 hours, 0 minutes, you
are incurring in costs.

This line of bussiness charges around $70 to $200 dollars an hour. If
it takes 5 hours to make switch, which i highly doubt it. It will
probably be costing your application around $700 - $1000 USD. And what
about the investment. The creator of the application probably doesn't
have the experience in SQL Server, so then they would have to invest
time on that or even take a course. Whats that, some 20 - 40 hours?
That ranges a cost of about $3,000 to $6,000.

In best case scenario, you would have to sell the application at
$1,000 a piece just to cover your costs. I don't think this
application sells at such a high price. Id guess around $300 USD.
(lets not think if its simply $49.99). You would requiere 14 new
customers that will not buy your app unless it has a SQL back end just
to break even Profit of switching to SQL Server.

- GL

PS:
Q: How do you cross a camel through the eye of a needle?
A: Switch to SQL Server.

If the world revolves around $ then choose the best cheapest database
backend.

The answer to that riddle? It is SQL Server.

It takes no longer time to upsize- than it does to deal with linked
table crap.
Linked tables and compact and repair take an infinite amount of time--
in maintenance.

The cost of moving to SQL Server is nil. You guys are just a decade
out of date for using an obsolete database.

Moving to SQL Server won't decrease costs? Well how about offering
people your application while they are 'on the road'?

How about allowing people to 'work from home' while using their Access
Applications?

Jet is not a database-- it hasn't been, never was-- and never will be.
If you care enough to build a database; use an engine with a future.

-Aaron





On Apr 14, 9:13*am, Guillermo_Lopez wrote:
On Apr 14, 11:34*am, wrote:

I mean honestly here-- let's get back to the topic at hand
---------------------------------------------------------------------------**--------
Although currently a one-user application, it would also make sense
to
develop a means to let an entire
* * * office use the application. *The user front-end would talk to a
SQL
Server backend.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------**--------

-Aaron

OK Back to the Topic!!!

The application is already a split Database with a Front End and a
Back End. Which means that the application is already available for
the entire office. It has the functionallity for a small Multi-User
environment which is what it is built for and the target customer.

The world moves around $. And it's usually the best way to really put
things in perspective.

We know that the application is working great. No issues with the
customers and they are satisfied. The application will sell to new
customers regardless of what's behind the code. Customer really
doesn't need to know how it works or what the backend.

This means that switching to SQL Server will _NOT_ increase the profit
of the Application. It will _Not_ sell more. In fact, maybe you might
sell to a few more. So that may be 3-5 new customers.

But, Then, what is the cost of switching to SQL server? You say it's
Nil. That is false. UNless you can switch in 0 hours, 0 minutes, you
are incurring in costs.

This line of bussiness charges around $70 to $200 dollars an hour. If
it takes 5 hours to make switch, which i highly doubt it. It will
probably be costing your application around $700 - $1000 USD. And what
about the investment. The creator of the application probably doesn't
have the experience in SQL Server, so then they would have to invest
time on that or even take a course. Whats that, some 20 - 40 hours?
That ranges a cost of about $3,000 to $6,000.

In best case scenario, you would have to sell the application at
$1,000 a piece just to cover your costs. I don't think this
application sells at such a high price. Id guess around $300 USD.
(lets not think if its simply $49.99). You would requiere 14 new
customers that will not buy your app unless it has a SQL back end just
to break even Profit of switching to SQL Server.

- GL

PS:
Q: How do you cross a camel through the eye of a needle?
A: Switch to SQL Server.

So tell me, of all the garbage going on how did you single out me for your
scolding, and why did you wait until I indicated there was nothing more to
say?

On another point, I could find no Chris on the mvps.org web site with a last
name that could be yours. Have I missed something?

"Chris O'C via AccessMonster.com" u29189@uwe wrote in message
news:82ae5dcfb3f54@uwe...
Yes, it does but try to remember that phrase long before you've pulled
your
hanky out more than half a dozen times.

Chris
Microsoft MVP


BruceM wrote:
"There is nothing more to say to you" sums it up, I think.

Bruce, don't stand downwind of someone who amuses himself by spitting
into
the wind every chance he gets.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]

I'm a strange man

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

I apologize if I seem to be I'm scolding you. That wasn't my intent. I
singled you out because you're logical and reasonable, but you're letting a
troll distract you too many times from helping people. Trolls will do
anything, including picking up troll droppings and eating them, to get
disgusted reactions. If that doesn't work, they'll throw them at you. Don't
let yourself be a target.

You didn't miss anything. I'm not on the mvps.org site yet.

Chris
Microsoft MVP



BruceM wrote:
So tell me, of all the garbage going on how did you single out me for your
scolding, and why did you wait until I indicated there was nothing more to
say?

On another point, I could find no Chris on the mvps.org web site with a last
name that could be yours. Have I missed something?

Yes, it does but try to remember that phrase long before you've pulled
your
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]

I'm a strange man

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com