Problem of copying records

[Rex]

In a table, I have number of records belonging to a particular ID now
if I enter a value in one of the fileds of this table I want it to be
copied in all the records belonging to this particluar ID. for example

ID Name
--------------------------
1 xyz
1
1
1
2
2
2
When I enter "xyz" for any one of the record of ID# 1.. I want all the
other records (with ID# 1) to have the name field as "xyz" so after
this.. the table would look like this

ID Name
--------------------------
1 xyz
1 xyz
1 xyz
1 xyz
2
2
2

I know this is not possible in table itself.. However I presume it
would be possible to do this in a form. But I dont know HOW

cheers
Rex

[Lyle Fairfield]

"Granny Spitz via AccessMonster.c om" <u26473@uwewrot e in
news:676fd89644 923@uwe:

David's not interested in anything I have to say. I won't be getting
a second chance.

Your posts give good advice. There's no need to be modest about them.

David seldom takes advice, so from the point of view of being helpful his
plonking you or anyone else is irrelevant.

I think we have exhausted the usefulness of this thread and should let it
fade away. I plan to do so.

--
Lyle Fairfield

[Granny Spitz via AccessMonster.com]

Lyle Fairfield wrote:

Your posts give good advice. There's no need to be modest about them.

The advice I give is at a different level than David's on. He doesn't need
it. It's the discussions between CDMA posters that are valuable, so cutting
off communication between certain posters cuts off some of the exchange of
ideas and points of view.

I think we have exhausted the usefulness of this thread and should let it
fade away. I plan to do so.

Very wise.

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

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.notwrote in
news:7IYVg.401$ Gp4.5@trnddc08:

"Granny Spitz via AccessMonster.c om" wrote

LOL! Thank you, Lyle! You made my day!

You two DO know that you are taking all the sting that David
intended right out of his <PLONK>, don't you? :-) Why, you seem
to be having fun with it!

How could they be accomplishing that if I've plonked both of them,
and won't be seeing their posts?

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

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.notwrote in
news:MnZVg.709$ i84.85@trnddc01 :

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@ aim.comwrote in message
news:11******** ************@i3 g2000cwc.google groups.com...

>Granny Spitz via AccessMonster.c om wrote:

>>Yes indeed! But David will never know what's going on. He's
plonked us both.

Of course, he won't. Suggesting that he does know or will know
would imply that he uses <PLONK!only for effect, to demonstrate
his capacity for incisive action. I'm sure David is much too
genuine for that, and I should know. After all he's plonked me
several times ... hmmmm ... ?

When people quote you, Lyle, I see your posts.

Ah, ha! Term-limited plonks?

My newsreader allows me to set my kill settings for a limited number
of days (the default is 30) or permanently. Lyle and Granny are
permanent members of my killfile. I'll occasionally retrieve one of
Lyle's posts and reply to it when he says something interesting that
is quoted by someone else.

The reason for the time-limited plonk is that it allows one to cool
off for a while, and to give someone a second chance.

I generally don't use it, since I don't plonk people until they've
shown themselves to be completely impossible.

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

[Lyle Fairfield]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.notwrote in
news:7IYVg.401$ Gp4.5@trnddc08:

"Granny Spitz via AccessMonster.c om" wrote

LOL! Thank you, Lyle! You made my day!

You two DO know that you are taking all the sting that David
intended right out of his <PLONK>, don't you? :-) Why, you seem
to be having fun with it!

How could they be accomplishing that if I've plonked both of them,
and won't be seeing their posts?

It's really too bad if you don't get the chance to show how vulnerable
DiscountAsp.Net SQL Hosting is. I know you won't see this but maybe
some one will alert you to the opportunity.

[Larry Linson]

"David W. Fenton" wrote

How could they be accomplishing that
if I've plonked both of them, and won't
be seeing their posts?

But, now that you know they are having fun with it, actually enjoying it.
IMNSHO, that, in itself, diminishes the value of a PLONKing. Even though a
PLONK is primarily for protecting the plonker from seeing posts; it's also a
"statement" to the plonkee.

Maybe you should take a look at Lyle's responses to the same post I
referenced here, as he's talking about your opportunity to demonstrate the
vulnerability of that website. I don't "have a dog in that fight," but,
well, I thought this was a rather interesting thread for a while.

Larry

[Arno R]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfen ton.com.invalid schreef in bericht news:Xn******** *************** ***********@127 .0.0.1...

I generally don't use it, since I don't plonk people until they've
shown themselves to be completely impossible.

Sometimes you are just plain wrong in your judgement.
But I guess you plonk yourself also once in a while ??

Arno R

[Granny Spitz via AccessMonster.com]

David W. Fenton wrote:

LOL! Thank you, Lyle! You made my day!

You two DO know that you are taking all the sting that David
intended right out of his <PLONK>, don't you? :-) Why, you seem
to be having fun with it!

How could they be accomplishing that if I've plonked both of them,
and won't be seeing their posts?

Does that mean Lyle can't laugh behind David's back, because David won't
*see* him laughing? Does that rule apply to everybody, even to Canadians?

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

[Larry Linson]

"Granny Spitz via AccessMonster.c om" wrote

David W. Fenton wrote:

>LOL! Thank you, Lyle! You made my day!

You two DO know that you are taking all the sting that David
intended right out of his <PLONK>, don't you? :-) Why, you seem
to be having fun with it!

How could they be accomplishing that if I've plonked both of them,
and won't be seeing their posts?

Does that mean Lyle can't laugh behind David's back, because David won't
*see* him laughing? Does that rule apply to everybody, even to

Canadians?

"If a tree laughs in the woods, and nobody hears it, did it make any sound?"

I can't think of another answer to this question that isn't likely to get me
added to somebody's "bad list." :-)

Larry