Do not want data to auto sort

I don't want to put this (or any) individual off answering questions.
My hope was that they would read up on cursors and learn from it for
next time.
You can be right expressing it the right way, and come accross nicely,
or you can be right the wrong way, and weaken your case. Maybe it's just
me, but you come across as being right (which is undisputed, as far as
I'm concerned) in the wrong way. I seem to remember though another
thread in the past, in which you were described as opinionated, so maybe
it's not just me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging you here, merely
trying to explain my angle.


It's a shame they were just sarcastic in return but some people you
just can't reach.
Actually I was somewhat surprised with Rick's reaction, I have to admit,
but digging out the hatchet won't help anybody with anything, will it?


You raise an interesting topic for me i.e. motivation for posting
replies. Rick B is a helpful guy in these NGs but if is he helping
people because it makes him all warm and fuzzy inside then isn't he
really doing it for himself?
A selfish motive for an altruistic action is not necessarily bad; after
all, why do we all do it? I won't deny it's part of my motivation as well.


If you are interested I can tell you I'm here to exercise my brain.
This sounds like a valid one, I'm buying it. Still, it can't be all
there is to it, for it doesn't justify posting back.


You raise another issue: should we answer the OP's question or
alternatively seek to inform the OP (or respondents) that there is
better way? A classic one in these NGs is storing calculations in a
table. Do you say never do it (ignoring or in ignorance of exceptions)?
Do you say, in these circumstances they would be storing redundant and
potentially misleading (e.g. out of date) data? Or do you answer the
question and tell them how to store their calculations in their table?
My view (and practice), on the above exaple, is: answer the question
(because the OP and others might benefit from learning how to store a
value in general, under different ccasions it might be right) while
stressing why it's bad practice under the circumstances; propose the
best practice; give examples of exceptions to the rule, if possible.
In other cases, when the question suggests the OP is going the wrong way
altogether (like wrong data structure), I don't anser the question at
all, just point out where they are wrong and what direction they should
be moving into.


I acknowledge that I sometimes seek to correct misstatements and
challenge biased views
This is crystal clear, it's just that you come across so strongly that
you seem biased, in the opposite direction.. or, should I say, obsessed
with SQL? Again, it may be just me.

At the end of the day, I'm not seeking to start a private war here. I
got carried away, for which I apologize; my original intention was just
to point out that (in my view, again), your style does not do justice to
your knowledge and potential for contribution. You might feel likewize
for me, and you might even be right for all I know. I think we both have
better uses for our time and energy, so it's over and out from me.

Regards,
Nikos

No war here. Cheers, Nikos.

"obsessed with SQL?" You may be on to something there

I'm still going to refer to the cursor as that blinking line on the screen.
When somebody says they want the cursor to appear in a particular text box, I
know what they mean. Even if there is another defintion of cursor for
purposes of database development, the common usage appears throughout the
computing world. Referring to "the blinking vertical line or other graphical
option indicating which control has the focus" will probably not catch on
when a single word is available. I think you knew you were using a largely
unknown defintion of the word "cursor". Would it have been so difficult to
explain that?

" wrote:


Nikos Yannacopoulos wrote:
Rick may have been wrong
about the cursor, but let the one who's never been wrong, cast the
first stone. On the other hand, I've seen him be helpful on a number of
occasions, even though he may not have known what the heck the cursor
really is... that's because Rick, and many other ignorants, including
yours truly, have been answering MS-Access questions, which is what
these NG's are about, and have been trying to *answer the question that
was asked*, as opposed to the question they would have liked to have
been asked, because that's what they know, and showing off makes them
feel superior.

I don't want to put this (or any) individual off answering questions.
My hope was that they would read up on cursors and learn from it for
next time. It's a shame they were just sarcastic in return but some
people you just can't reach.

He made a misstatement or two about tables, no big deal. I sought to
correct the misstatements and all are free to ignore what I write (I'm
in no doubt that most do). You seem to be saying that this guy has been
helpful in the past and his intentions were good, well then that's nice
but why is that relevant to him making misstatements? I can't stress
this enough: we all make misstatements and it's no big deal (that's why
I wouldn't throw stones).

You raise an interesting topic for me i.e. motivation for posting
replies. Rick B is a helpful guy in these NGs but if is he helping
people because it makes him all warm and fuzzy inside then isn't he
really doing it for himself?

You raise another issue: should we answer the OP's question or
alternatively seek to inform the OP (or respondents) that there is
better way? A classic one in these NGs is storing calculations in a
table. Do you say never do it (ignoring or in ignorance of exceptions)?
Do you say, in these circumstances they would be storing redundant and
potentially misleading (e.g. out of date) data? Or do you answer the
question and tell them how to store their calculations in their table?

Nikos, you are a good guy and I listen to and respect what you say. I'm
not here to exercise my ego or make myself appear superior. I take your
feedback and will try to ensure that matters of ego do not creep in.
You think they have done in the past so then I apologize openly. On a
similar note, I genuinely hope Rick B hasn't been offended by any of
this and extend my regret and apologies to him if he has.

If you are interested I can tell you I'm here to exercise my brain. I
like problem solving with SQL and I work out my own answers to problems
posted here. Some answers I post, some I don't (and many I can't solve
at all!) You are correct: I'm not motivated by directly helping OPs but
maybe if posting my answers makes someone somewhere think about
changing their approach ('Hey maybe *I* should write DDL!') then
perhaps I will have been indirectly helpful. I'm interested in the
subject matter and not the people and personalities involved. Maybe I
am a bad person for this.

I acknowledge that I sometimes seek to correct misstatements and
challenge biased views (while avoiding pointless discussions which have
been done to death before e.g. ADO vs DAO). Yes it's a weakness of
mine, a natural sense of wanting to right wrongs. Do you think I should
stop doing this?

I meant to reply to peregenem.

"BruceM" wrote:

I'm still going to refer to the cursor as that blinking line on the screen.
When somebody says they want the cursor to appear in a particular text box, I
know what they mean. Even if there is another defintion of cursor for
purposes of database development, the common usage appears throughout the
computing world. Referring to "the blinking vertical line or other graphical
option indicating which control has the focus" will probably not catch on
when a single word is available. I think you knew you were using a largely
unknown defintion of the word "cursor". Would it have been so difficult to
explain that?

" wrote:


Nikos Yannacopoulos wrote:
Rick may have been wrong
about the cursor, but let the one who's never been wrong, cast the
first stone. On the other hand, I've seen him be helpful on a number of
occasions, even though he may not have known what the heck the cursor
really is... that's because Rick, and many other ignorants, including
yours truly, have been answering MS-Access questions, which is what
these NG's are about, and have been trying to *answer the question that
was asked*, as opposed to the question they would have liked to have
been asked, because that's what they know, and showing off makes them
feel superior.

I don't want to put this (or any) individual off answering questions.
My hope was that they would read up on cursors and learn from it for
next time. It's a shame they were just sarcastic in return but some
people you just can't reach.

He made a misstatement or two about tables, no big deal. I sought to
correct the misstatements and all are free to ignore what I write (I'm
in no doubt that most do). You seem to be saying that this guy has been
helpful in the past and his intentions were good, well then that's nice
but why is that relevant to him making misstatements? I can't stress
this enough: we all make misstatements and it's no big deal (that's why
I wouldn't throw stones).

You raise an interesting topic for me i.e. motivation for posting
replies. Rick B is a helpful guy in these NGs but if is he helping
people because it makes him all warm and fuzzy inside then isn't he
really doing it for himself?

You raise another issue: should we answer the OP's question or
alternatively seek to inform the OP (or respondents) that there is
better way? A classic one in these NGs is storing calculations in a
table. Do you say never do it (ignoring or in ignorance of exceptions)?
Do you say, in these circumstances they would be storing redundant and
potentially misleading (e.g. out of date) data? Or do you answer the
question and tell them how to store their calculations in their table?

Nikos, you are a good guy and I listen to and respect what you say. I'm
not here to exercise my ego or make myself appear superior. I take your
feedback and will try to ensure that matters of ego do not creep in.
You think they have done in the past so then I apologize openly. On a
similar note, I genuinely hope Rick B hasn't been offended by any of
this and extend my regret and apologies to him if he has.

If you are interested I can tell you I'm here to exercise my brain. I
like problem solving with SQL and I work out my own answers to problems
posted here. Some answers I post, some I don't (and many I can't solve
at all!) You are correct: I'm not motivated by directly helping OPs but
maybe if posting my answers makes someone somewhere think about
changing their approach ('Hey maybe *I* should write DDL!') then
perhaps I will have been indirectly helpful. I'm interested in the
subject matter and not the people and personalities involved. Maybe I
am a bad person for this.

I acknowledge that I sometimes seek to correct misstatements and
challenge biased views (while avoiding pointless discussions which have
been done to death before e.g. ADO vs DAO). Yes it's a weakness of
mine, a natural sense of wanting to right wrongs. Do you think I should
stop doing this?

BruceM wrote:
I'm still going to refer to the cursor as that blinking line on the screen.

There is nothing in this thread suggesting you should do otherwise.

Referring to "the blinking vertical line or other graphical
option indicating which control has the focus" will probably not catch on
when a single word is available.

There is nothing in this thread to suggest otherwise.

I think you knew you were using a largely
unknown defintion of the word "cursor".

I am aware the 'blinking character' meaning is the most common usage of
the word in computing generally. However, in the context of databases,
the 'fetching data' meaning is more common. For example, try a google
groups search using:

group:comp.databases * +cursor

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...abases*+cursor

From the pages of results that I perused I couldn't see a single one
relating to the 'blinking character' meaning. Do you now see how easy
it was for me to assume a group relating to 'the database product in
the MSOffice suite' would have known the kind of cursor to which I was
referring, especially in the context of my usage: 'A cursor sorts
data'?

Change the above search to this:

group:comp.databases.ms-access* cursor

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...access*+cursor

I acknowledge the balance shifts significantly (but not wholly) to the
'blinking character' meaning. So I've learned something today.

Interestingly, I searched MSDN using:

cursor+access

http://search.microsoft.com/search/r...ss&s= 1&swc=4

and it took me four pages of results before I would spot a reference to
the 'blinking character' meaning.

Another thing you must understand is that I was in a quandary as to
whether RickB was trying to be funny. The wording he employed was so
close to the opening sentence of 'What the Heck is a Cursor, Anyway?'
that I thought he may have been aware of the MSDN article and 'taking
the rise' (after all, he's used sarcasm throughout this thread). I
found it hard to believe that someone giving advice about sorting data
had never heard of that kind of cursor.

So, to respond to your, 'I think you knew you were using a largely
unknown defintion of the word "cursor",' the answer in all honesty is,
'No, I did not know.'

These newsgroups are used by people who range in experience from those who
are familiar with both uses of the term 'cursor' to those who are unfamiliar
with either usage. In my opinion there is no absolute answer to the question
of whether the terminology is appropriate or not. It is appropriate if we
have reason to believe that the person we are addressing will understand it,
and inappropriate if we do not. It is not always easy to judge.
--
Brendan Reynolds (MVP)

wrote in message
oups.com...

BruceM wrote:
I'm still going to refer to the cursor as that blinking line on the
screen.

There is nothing in this thread suggesting you should do otherwise.

Referring to "the blinking vertical line or other graphical
option indicating which control has the focus" will probably not catch on
when a single word is available.

There is nothing in this thread to suggest otherwise.

I think you knew you were using a largely
unknown defintion of the word "cursor".

I am aware the 'blinking character' meaning is the most common usage of
the word in computing generally. However, in the context of databases,
the 'fetching data' meaning is more common. For example, try a google
groups search using:

group:comp.databases * +cursor

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...abases*+cursor

From the pages of results that I perused I couldn't see a single one
relating to the 'blinking character' meaning. Do you now see how easy
it was for me to assume a group relating to 'the database product in
the MSOffice suite' would have known the kind of cursor to which I was
referring, especially in the context of my usage: 'A cursor sorts
data'?

Change the above search to this:

group:comp.databases.ms-access* cursor

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...access*+cursor

I acknowledge the balance shifts significantly (but not wholly) to the
'blinking character' meaning. So I've learned something today.

Interestingly, I searched MSDN using:

cursor+access

http://search.microsoft.com/search/r...ss&s= 1&swc=4

and it took me four pages of results before I would spot a reference to
the 'blinking character' meaning.

Another thing you must understand is that I was in a quandary as to
whether RickB was trying to be funny. The wording he employed was so
close to the opening sentence of 'What the Heck is a Cursor, Anyway?'
that I thought he may have been aware of the MSDN article and 'taking
the rise' (after all, he's used sarcasm throughout this thread). I
found it hard to believe that someone giving advice about sorting data
had never heard of that kind of cursor.

So, to respond to your, 'I think you knew you were using a largely
unknown defintion of the word "cursor",' the answer in all honesty is,
'No, I did not know.'

I had thought the "blinking thing" definition of "cursor" so ubiquitous that
you must be deliberately ignoring it. My apologies for making the assumption.
I don't know if use of the term "cursor" (for sorting data) applies to all
databases or to Access specifically (I suspect the former, but that's not the
point here), Microsoft certainly makes things difficult at times by using
different terminology, methods, shortcuts, etc. in different places.
Different methods and menus are used to align controls is Access and align
graphics in Word, for instance. I could go on, but there's no point. The
only point here is that terminology confusion and Microsoft accompany each
other. This phenomenon is not limited to Microsoft, of course (government
agencies come to mind), but Microsoft Access is the topic at hand.
I too have learned something here, which is why I browse these groups.

" wrote:


BruceM wrote:
I'm still going to refer to the cursor as that blinking line on the screen.

There is nothing in this thread suggesting you should do otherwise.

Referring to "the blinking vertical line or other graphical
option indicating which control has the focus" will probably not catch on
when a single word is available.

There is nothing in this thread to suggest otherwise.

I think you knew you were using a largely
unknown defintion of the word "cursor".

I am aware the 'blinking character' meaning is the most common usage of
the word in computing generally. However, in the context of databases,
the 'fetching data' meaning is more common. For example, try a google
groups search using:

group:comp.databases * +cursor

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...abases*+cursor

From the pages of results that I perused I couldn't see a single one
relating to the 'blinking character' meaning. Do you now see how easy
it was for me to assume a group relating to 'the database product in
the MSOffice suite' would have known the kind of cursor to which I was
referring, especially in the context of my usage: 'A cursor sorts
data'?

Change the above search to this:

group:comp.databases.ms-access* cursor

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...access*+cursor

I acknowledge the balance shifts significantly (but not wholly) to the
'blinking character' meaning. So I've learned something today.

Interestingly, I searched MSDN using:

cursor+access

http://search.microsoft.com/search/r...ss&s= 1&swc=4

and it took me four pages of results before I would spot a reference to
the 'blinking character' meaning.

Another thing you must understand is that I was in a quandary as to
whether RickB was trying to be funny. The wording he employed was so
close to the opening sentence of 'What the Heck is a Cursor, Anyway?'
that I thought he may have been aware of the MSDN article and 'taking
the rise' (after all, he's used sarcasm throughout this thread). I
found it hard to believe that someone giving advice about sorting data
had never heard of that kind of cursor.

So, to respond to your, 'I think you knew you were using a largely
unknown defintion of the word "cursor",' the answer in all honesty is,
'No, I did not know.'

The correct name for the "blinking thing" on the screen is caret.

Quote from the Platform SDK follows

Carets
----------
A caret is a blinking line, block, or bitmap in the client area of a window.
The caret typically indicates the place at which text or graphics will be
inserted.


--
Terry Kreft
MVP Microsoft Access


"BruceM" wrote in message
...
I had thought the "blinking thing" definition of "cursor" so ubiquitous
that
you must be deliberately ignoring it. My apologies for making the
assumption.
SNIP