Yeah, I think MS is not taking into account all the people like me that just
read and learn and don't necessarily post a lot of questions...

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

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


"Fred" wrote:

> Folks have recommended various sites to replace this (Access) newsgroup for
> when poor-listener Microsoft drops it.
>
> Why don't we pick a replacement to give it the "critical mass" to fully
> replace this one? If interested, please respond to this with your
> recommendation.
>
> Also, if you feel like it, in case this goes dead, send me an email with
> your email address at North9000 at gmail dot com and I'll try to
> collect / send out the news/results. (via blind cc)
>
> I did / will be duplicating this in database design, general and new user
> Access groups.
>

=?Utf-8?B?QWxiZXJ0IFMu?= <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:A05FDCBD-5923-4317-970F-(E-Mail Removed):

> I vote for comp.database.access or http://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/

"David W. Fenton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>
>> I vote for comp.database.access or http://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!).
>

That said, there are some very competent people who answer questions at
UtterAccess, many of them MVPs. A significant percentage of new MVPs in
recent years were first identified by their work at UtterAccess.

Now, _that_ said, I have only ever just visited that site, and known some
people who post there, possibly even the moderator(s) who banned David. One
of the reasons that I don't post there is that I don't want to deal with
somebody else's idea of what I should say and how I should say it, no matter
how nice they may be in person, nor how good they are with the subject at
hand.

Larry Linson, Microsoft Office Access MVP

"Access Developer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Now, _that_ said, I have only ever just visited that site, and
> known some people who post there, possibly even the moderator(s)
> who banned David. One of the reasons that I don't post there is
> that I don't want to deal with somebody else's idea of what I
> should say and how I should say it, no matter how nice they may be
> in person, nor how good they are with the subject at hand.

The problem I had was that the people doing the banning do not
understand the English language. One in particular thought the word
"bloody" was a reference to menstruation. Nor did the moderators
understand the difference between calling someone's words stupid and
calling the person posting them stupid. Had I done that latter, I
would have apologized.

This shows me that non-smart people are making the decisions there,
and thus, I feel satisfied that I was banned, since I did not fit
their idea of the kind of people they want contributing to their
site.

That is, of course, the problem with all centralized sites. The
owners of the site can ban you for arbitrary reasons. That's why the
MS move to bring all their forums into their own servers is a bad
move, because it's no longer open, and raises the possibility that
MS could remove any content unfavorable to them or their products.

On Usenet, that's simply not possible.

And that's one of many reasons why Usenet is the vastly superior
venue for this kind of thing.

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

David

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.

.... 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'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!>).

Regards

Jeff Boyce

"David W. Fenton" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9D8C88DA9AF8Df99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.91...
> "Access Developer" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Now, _that_ said, I have only ever just visited that site, and
>> known some people who post there, possibly even the moderator(s)
>> who banned David. One of the reasons that I don't post there is
>> that I don't want to deal with somebody else's idea of what I
>> should say and how I should say it, no matter how nice they may be
>> in person, nor how good they are with the subject at hand.
>
> The problem I had was that the people doing the banning do not
> understand the English language. One in particular thought the word
> "bloody" was a reference to menstruation. Nor did the moderators
> understand the difference between calling someone's words stupid and
> calling the person posting them stupid. Had I done that latter, I
> would have apologized.
>
> This shows me that non-smart people are making the decisions there,
> and thus, I feel satisfied that I was banned, since I did not fit
> their idea of the kind of people they want contributing to their
> site.
>
> That is, of course, the problem with all centralized sites. The
> owners of the site can ban you for arbitrary reasons. That's why the
> MS move to bring all their forums into their own servers is a bad
> move, because it's no longer open, and raises the possibility that
> MS could remove any content unfavorable to them or their products.
>
> On Usenet, that's simply not possible.
>
> And that's one of many reasons why Usenet is the vastly superior
> venue for this kind of thing.
>
> --
> David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
> usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

On 3 June, 02:01, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...@dfenton.com.invalid>
wrote:
> =?Utf-8?B?QWxiZXJ0IFMu?= <alber...@albert.microsoft.com> wrote innews:A05FDCBD-5923-4317-970F-(E-Mail Removed):
>
> > 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?

"Jeff Boyce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> 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/

Keith Wilby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:6b28e193-f469-4307-ad6e-(E-Mail Removed)
:

> 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/

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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9D8D8E8D4C0F4f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.98...
> "Jeff Boyce" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> 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/

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" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9D8D8EE3BF34Bf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2@74.209.136.98...
> Keith Wilby <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:6b28e193-f469-4307-ad6e-(E-Mail Removed)
> :
>
>> 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/