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 » New Users
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  

Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 4th, 2010, 10:25 AM posted to microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted
Keith Wilby[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

On 3 June, 02:01, "David W. Fenton"
wrote:
=?Utf-8?B?QWxiZXJ0IFMu?= wrote :

I vote for comp.database.access orhttp://www.utteraccess.com/


Haven't used the utteraccess yet, but signed up and have started
reading some of the posts...


Utteraccess is a private site and if you violate the arbitrary rules
of the admins there, you can be banned (as I was, for saying that
somebody's answer was bloody stupid and then explaining why; you
can't find that answer there now, because they deleted it after they
banned me for not apologizing!).

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


Funny you should get banned from there. Very funny in fact. Could it
be your attitude problem again that earned you then ban?
Ads
  #12  
Old June 4th, 2010, 07:14 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted
David W. Fenton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,373
Default Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

"Jeff Boyce" wrote in
:

I was not aware that your posts were banned from UtterAccess, so I
don't have a dog in that fight...

I'll point out that if you have something to say and you wish
folks to listen, telling them that their ideas are stupid is
counterproductive.


I didn't say his *idea* was stupid, but that the *words he posted*
were stupid (and they were, and I explained why).

... and unless you also went on to describe the likely outcomes of
using that (stupid) idea, and offer a solution of your own, your
approach didn't expand the body of knowledge.


I did exactly that -- explained what was wrong with his answer and
what the correct answer was.

I've been quite impressed with the ideas/approaches you've
provided, so it IS personal ... I like them! ... the delivery,
however... sucks (NOTE ... Tongue-in-Cheek, Just-A-Joke,
illustrating my point ...G!).


You get what you pay for.

I've been posting to Usenet since 1994, and things are so much less,
er, shall we say "high-spirited" nowadays than back then. You had to
have the courage of your convictions to post back then. Since you
knew that you could get rhetorically flame-broiled for posting
something dumb or inaccurate, it made you more careful -- you'd
check before you posted.

I frankly prefer that environment, where peer pressure disciplined
the participants instead of the threat of banning. I'm a real
believer in the idea that the antidote for bad speech is more
speech.

But a lot of people want to be protected from anything remotely
controversial, so they can have the Utteraccess-type forums.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
  #13  
Old June 4th, 2010, 07:16 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted
David W. Fenton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,373
Default Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

Keith Wilby wrote in

:

Funny you should get banned from there. Very funny in fact. Could
it be your attitude problem again that earned you then ban?


I don't have an attitude problem.

I've explained the situation. I criticized someone's posts using
words that offended people. My criticism was not wrong -- it was
only the terms in which I registered the criticism that were the
problem (and the fact that the admins couldn't distinguish between
criticism of words and criticism of the person uttering them).

Given that, I felt the banning was the proper result, as it's
obvious the forum was for those who wanted to be protected form
anything that didn't stroke their egos and treat them like children.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
  #14  
Old June 4th, 2010, 07:18 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted
Jeff Boyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,621
Default Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

You won't get any argument from me on whether "spirited discourse" or "calm
rationality" represents a better choice ("better" implies someone's correct,
other's aren't, and I've seen too many situations in which everyone had a
viable solution, some more viable than others g).

I was just pointing out that the odds of getting heard and understood go
down if you yell ...G

Thanks for your contributions!

Jeff Boyce

"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
36.98...
"Jeff Boyce" wrote in
:

I was not aware that your posts were banned from UtterAccess, so I
don't have a dog in that fight...

I'll point out that if you have something to say and you wish
folks to listen, telling them that their ideas are stupid is
counterproductive.


I didn't say his *idea* was stupid, but that the *words he posted*
were stupid (and they were, and I explained why).

... and unless you also went on to describe the likely outcomes of
using that (stupid) idea, and offer a solution of your own, your
approach didn't expand the body of knowledge.


I did exactly that -- explained what was wrong with his answer and
what the correct answer was.

I've been quite impressed with the ideas/approaches you've
provided, so it IS personal ... I like them! ... the delivery,
however... sucks (NOTE ... Tongue-in-Cheek, Just-A-Joke,
illustrating my point ...G!).


You get what you pay for.

I've been posting to Usenet since 1994, and things are so much less,
er, shall we say "high-spirited" nowadays than back then. You had to
have the courage of your convictions to post back then. Since you
knew that you could get rhetorically flame-broiled for posting
something dumb or inaccurate, it made you more careful -- you'd
check before you posted.

I frankly prefer that environment, where peer pressure disciplined
the participants instead of the threat of banning. I'm a real
believer in the idea that the antidote for bad speech is more
speech.

But a lot of people want to be protected from anything remotely
controversial, so they can have the Utteraccess-type forums.

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



  #15  
Old June 4th, 2010, 07:21 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted
Jeff Boyce
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,621
Default Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

Hold on, are you saying that if folks don't agree with your approach, they
wish to be treated like children?

Using phrasing like that seems to imply that you think your approach is the
only correct way for adults to help each other...

Is that what you think?

Again, if what you want to do is help folks learn, does it work better to do
it the way YOU want to, or they way THEY want it done?

Regards

Jeff Boyce
"David W. Fenton" wrote in message
36.98...
Keith Wilby wrote in

:

Funny you should get banned from there. Very funny in fact. Could
it be your attitude problem again that earned you then ban?


I don't have an attitude problem.

I've explained the situation. I criticized someone's posts using
words that offended people. My criticism was not wrong -- it was
only the terms in which I registered the criticism that were the
problem (and the fact that the admins couldn't distinguish between
criticism of words and criticism of the person uttering them).

Given that, I felt the banning was the proper result, as it's
obvious the forum was for those who wanted to be protected form
anything that didn't stroke their egos and treat them like children.

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



  #16  
Old June 4th, 2010, 07:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,451
Default Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

A continuation of this is in a June 4th post in the "General Questions"
section.
  #17  
Old June 5th, 2010, 11:47 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted
David W. Fenton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,373
Default Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

"Jeff Boyce" wrote in
:

I was just pointing out that the odds of getting heard and
understood go down if you yell ...G


I don't yell. I do use strong rhetoric.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/
  #18  
Old June 5th, 2010, 11:51 PM posted to microsoft.public.access.gettingstarted
David W. Fenton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,373
Default Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

"Jeff Boyce" wrote in
:

Hold on, are you saying that if folks don't agree with your
approach, they wish to be treated like children?


No, only that the desire to be protected from strong rhetoric is
asking to be treated like less than an adult.

Using phrasing like that seems to imply that you think your
approach is the only correct way for adults to help each other...

Is that what you think?


I think that people who want to be protected from strong speech are
foolish, in that a lot of valuable discourse is couched in terms
that are less than gentile.

Again, if what you want to do is help folks learn, does it work
better to do it the way YOU want to, or they way THEY want it
done?


When the situation warrants, I use strong rhetoric. Some people get
all flustered about that. I say they should get a thicker skin.

If they don't like my rhetorical style, they can killfile me. On the
other hand, if they find the *content* (as opposed to the style) of
my posts valuable, they can read past the style for the substance.

It's entirely up to them.

My criticism of sites like UtterAccess.com and MS's new
walled-garden support forums is that there is a chokepoint of
control that can be used to unfairly exclude on grounds that aren't
necessarily fair. That control is not possible with Usenet, and I
consider that a good thing that makes Usenet (despite the
possibility of wild-west unruliness breaking out) vastly superior.

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




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 OfficeFrustration.
The comments are property of their posters.