MS Access forum

"Randy Harris" <ra***@SpamFree.com> wrote in
news:BP******************@newssvr13.news.prodigy.c om:

"Arno R" <ar***********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:43***********************@text.nova.planet.nl ...

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> schreef in
bericht news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

Last of all, in *this* thread, Steve was *not* involved until
you and your compatriots gratuitously introduced him into the
thread.

This is *not true at all*.
Obviously you have still problems with your eyes, and/or you are
not

reading the full thread.

Arno is absolutely right on this point. Perhaps you missed it
because of having killfiled Steve. There had been no mention
whatever of pcdatasheet or Steve in this thread until he chose to
post his "loser" messages.

Yes, I discovered this after posting that.

But if anything, it seems rather ironic to me that you'd be
interested in citing that. The fact that I didn't know about Steve's
post looks to me like the best recommendation for killfiling him --
if you don't see it, there's nothing to get upset about.

But both sides here are equally resistant to reason, so I know it's
a waste of time for me to continue the discussion, so:

<PLONK>

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

Fair enough. You are clearly unaware of the actual issue, and you don't
care about it. Maybe you'd be better off not lecturing people about it
until you do.

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

This issue takes up very little of my time I'm happy to report.

OK, then.

<PLONK>

Ah, the happy, happy sound of an argument being lost. Fenton really does
have an inflated sense of his own importance.

Hi Rob,

I guess you are just 'asking' to be the following person to be plonked by our 'big shot' here... ;-)
Because: if you don't agree with DWF and not immediately back down when he tells you... that might be your fate.

This seems to be specifically the case in threads he did not read fully.

Arno R
"Rob Oldfield" <bl**@blah.com> schreef in bericht news:43***********************@news.zen.co.uk...

Fair enough. You are clearly unaware of the actual issue, and you don't
care about it. Maybe you'd be better off not lecturing people about it
until you do.

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

<PLONKer>

You certainly are. I'm begining to understand why Don Mellon hates you.

"Arno R" <ar***********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:43***********************@text.nova.planet.nl ...

Hi Rob, I guess you are just 'asking' to be the following person to be plonked by
our 'big shot' here... ;-)
Because: if you don't agree with DWF and not immediately back down when he
tells you... that might be your fate. This seems to be specifically the case in threads he did not read fully.

You know, I *used* to have the greatest of respect for David, he has helped
me once or twice and I sympathised with his plight of being harrassed by Don
Mellon, but recently I have read more and more postings of his where his
bedside manner was bruske to say the least. He recently gave me a telling
of like a naughty schoolboy, when I responded and "gave as good as I got" I
got "plonked". Whatever will I do now? Who turned out all the lights?
David's ego knows no bounds.

I have been trying so hard to stay out of these threads but this has pushed
me over.

That is unfair, DWF and I have had major rows over the years, I haven't
killfiled him and he hasn't killfiled me (well maybe temporarily).

David has made numerous reasonable (for him <g>) requests that the campaign
against Steve stop within the NG before he elevated to "threats" to
killfile.

Why on earth you don't simply agree on a strategy to deal with Steve in the
same way that an agreement to deal with DPM was made. In that way you can
address Steve's actions in such a way that anybody can see but without
disrupting the rest of the NG.

Could I suggest that the following would be a reasonable strategy.

When Steve posts in a thread where he is in contravention of the FAQ then
1) Make one response directly following his first post. (and I don't
mean one each !)
2) After that leave it for that thread
3) Do not get into "discussions" with him
4) Make a complaint to his ISP

Simple, effective, regains the moral high ground and stops the arguments
between your "group" and everynody else.
--
Terry Kreft

"Arno R" <ar***********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:43***********************@text.nova.planet.nl ...
Hi Rob,

I guess you are just 'asking' to be the following person to be plonked by
our 'big shot' here... ;-)
Because: if you don't agree with DWF and not immediately back down when he
tells you... that might be your fate.

This seems to be specifically the case in threads he did not read fully.

Arno R
"Rob Oldfield" <bl**@blah.com> schreef in bericht
news:43***********************@news.zen.co.uk...

Fair enough. You are clearly unaware of the actual issue, and you don't
care about it. Maybe you'd be better off not lecturing people about it
until you do.

I doubt that very much.

<Ironic humour>
Of course if you display paranoid schizophrenia allied with bipolararity
controlled with hit and miss medication and extreme homophobia then maybe
I'm wrong <g>.
</Ironic humour>
--
Terry Kreft

"Mr Keith" <he**@there.com> wrote in message
news:43**********@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

<PLONKer>

You certainly are. I'm begining to understand why Don Mellon hates you.

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ce********************@karoo.co.uk...

I doubt that very much.

<Ironic humour>
Of course if you display paranoid schizophrenia allied with bipolararity
controlled with hit and miss medication and extreme homophobia then maybe
I'm wrong <g>.
</Ironic humour>

You're right, that was uncalled for, I am in no way allied to DM regardless
of provocation. By the way, I agree with your suggestion about how to
"deal" with Steve, we did indeed have this in place but this thread was
started as a blatent troll and we all fell for it, or so it seems.

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> schreef in bericht news:Ce********************@karoo.co.uk...

That is unfair, DWF and I have had major rows over the years, I haven't
killfiled him and he hasn't killfiled me (well maybe temporarily).
What is unfair Terry??
He did killfile me for no other reason than a disagreement (in fact sort of the same way like he just killfiled Keith and Randy)
David was wrong (in fact blind) in the specific thread where he plonked me, like he was wrong/blind this time also.
But please let's not get into a fight or a discussion about DWF here Terry. At least I don't feel like that.
I respect David's knowledge, but not his way of dealing with disagreements.
David has made numerous reasonable (for him <g>) requests that the campaign
against Steve stop within the NG before he elevated to "threats" to
killfile.
Reasonable ??? <*big* grin indeed>
Why on earth you don't simply agree on a strategy to deal with Steve in the
same way that an agreement to deal with DPM was made. In that way you can
address Steve's actions in such a way that anybody can see but without
disrupting the rest of the NG.

Could I suggest that the following would be a reasonable strategy.

When Steve posts in a thread where he is in contravention of the FAQ then
1) Make one response directly following his first post. (and I don't
mean one each !)
2) After that leave it for that thread
In fact this is exactly what we agreed on.
(This is essentially the idea of Rick Brandt in "A message to the community")

We will post a message and a link to the website ASAP (but only ONE time in the same thread).
So the OP has a chance to read (or ignore) the website.
That should be enough. If the OP still wants to do business with Steve?? OK!
We guess the website will be very effective.
3) Do not get into "discussions" with him
Indeed. For the rest let's all totally ignore PCDataSheet.
This might bring some peace and rest back in these newsgroups.
4) Make a complaint to his ISP
I doubt this will help very much, but I might be wrong.
I am afraid only numerous complaints will help. (Have you posted a complaint allready?)
Simple, effective, regains the moral high ground and stops the arguments
between your "group" and everynody else.

Let's all get back to work indeed.

Arno R

David mentioned irony in the message within which he announced that he had
killfiled me. I think there might be a larger irony here. This particular
thread was not about datasheet. David failed to notice that. After the
initial flame bait post, the thread was about slamming newbies. Who had
done that recently? I think everyone knows. And finally, take a look back
through the thread, who posted the greatest number of messages that
sustained the various subthreads? In his zeal to condemn those who are
actively opposing the CDMA advertising, it was David himself who elevated
this particular thread to the regrettable flame fest that it is.

Of course, David won't see this message.

--
Randy Harris
tech at promail dot com
I'm pretty sure I know everything that I can remember.

That's why I've been avoiding this issue in the NG, although I of course
have opinions on it, because it's inflammatory and I didn't want to get
into heated discussions with people about a third party.

What I thought was unfair was the apparent branding of David as having
jumped straight to threats of killfiling.

My perception is that David tends to killfile people in order to let the
situation/himself/the other person (whichever of those) cool down. He then
tends to remove people from his killfile, I may be wrong and if I am I'm
sure David will tell me (probably tell me to keep my nose out and not talk
for him as well, which unfortunately as a sentiment I'd probably have to
agree with <g>).

I tend to killfile people where it becomes obvious to me that we don't talk
on the same wavelength and probably never will.

Anyway, I've said more than I intended on this subject already, back to
Access anybody?

--
Terry Kreft

"Arno R" <ar***********@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:43***********************@text.nova.planet.nl ...

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:Ce********************@karoo.co.uk...

That is unfair, DWF and I have had major rows over the years, I haven't
killfiled him and he hasn't killfiled me (well maybe temporarily).
What is unfair Terry??
He did killfile me for no other reason than a disagreement (in fact sort of
the same way like he just killfiled Keith and Randy)
David was wrong (in fact blind) in the specific thread where he plonked me,
like he was wrong/blind this time also.
But please let's not get into a fight or a discussion about DWF here Terry.
At least I don't feel like that.
I respect David's knowledge, but not his way of dealing with disagreements.
David has made numerous reasonable (for him <g>) requests that the
campaign
against Steve stop within the NG before he elevated to "threats" to
killfile.
Reasonable ??? <*big* grin indeed>
Why on earth you don't simply agree on a strategy to deal with Steve in
the
same way that an agreement to deal with DPM was made. In that way you can
address Steve's actions in such a way that anybody can see but without
disrupting the rest of the NG.

Could I suggest that the following would be a reasonable strategy.

When Steve posts in a thread where he is in contravention of the FAQ then
1) Make one response directly following his first post. (and I don't
mean one each !)
2) After that leave it for that thread
In fact this is exactly what we agreed on.
(This is essentially the idea of Rick Brandt in "A message to the
community")

We will post a message and a link to the website ASAP (but only ONE time in
the same thread).
So the OP has a chance to read (or ignore) the website.
That should be enough. If the OP still wants to do business with Steve?? OK!
We guess the website will be very effective.
3) Do not get into "discussions" with him
Indeed. For the rest let's all totally ignore PCDataSheet.
This might bring some peace and rest back in these newsgroups.
4) Make a complaint to his ISP
I doubt this will help very much, but I might be wrong.
I am afraid only numerous complaints will help. (Have you posted a complaint
allready?)
Simple, effective, regains the moral high ground and stops the arguments
between your "group" and everynody else.

Let's all get back to work indeed.

Arno R

Randy Harris wrote:

This particular
thread was not about datasheet. David failed to notice that. After the
initial flame bait post, the thread was about slamming newbies.

Correct, it's one of the drawbacks of killfiling people I've found.
It's important to ascertain if there are "missing" portions of a thread
that gets one's ire so that one doesn't look silly in one's reactions.

Terry's advice is similar to what I've posted elsewhere. Arno is wrong
in wondering if complaints to ISPs have any effects: there is more than
one user on usenet, for example, I've seen have their account removed
(sometimes including a post from the ISP) and quite recently, a
anonymous remailer to whom I complained wrote me back to say the group
in question had been removed from that poster's available groups.

So ISP complaints DO work. Follow the procedure I posted elsewhere and
Terry's recipe - it'll make for a better group on all fronts, I think.
--
Tim http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~tmarshal/
^o<
/#) "Burp-beep, burp-beep, burp-beep?" - Quaker Jake
/^^ "Whatcha doin?" - Ditto "TIM-MAY!!" - Me

"Rob Oldfield" <bl**@blah.com> wrote in
news:43***********************@news.zen.co.uk:

Fair enough. You are clearly unaware of the actual issue, and you
don't care about it. Maybe you'd be better off not lecturing
people about it until you do.

I know exactly what the actual issue is and recognize that it can't
be resolved except if Steve decides to change his behavior. It's
quite clear that the constant hectoring of the bunch of you only
makes Steve *less* likely to change, as he started out responding to
it relatively civilly and eventually changed to majorly nasty (at
which point I killfiled him).

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

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote in
news:iW********************@karoo.co.uk:

My perception is that David tends to killfile people in order to
let the situation/himself/the other person (whichever of those)
cool down. He then tends to remove people from his killfile, I
may be wrong and if I am I'm sure David will tell me (probably
tell me to keep my nose out and not talk for him as well, which
unfortunately as a sentiment I'd probably have to agree with <g>).

It depends on the poster. Worthwhile posters who show up regularly
in interesting discussions will tend to get out of my killfile
(though Lyle jumps in and out on a regular basis).

But those who have no apparent value don't tend to ever leave the
killfile.

I would normally do a 30-day kill in a situation like this, but none
of the posters involved have any memorable profile as valued
contributors to the newsgroup, so they just went to the permanent
killfile.

And, let me point out, the suggestion you made is exactly what I
recommended that they do (actually, I begged them to limit their
responses to a single post), and that was weeks ago.

One thing I'd add: if they'd use a FROM: address that's different
from their usual to do it, those of us who aren't interested in
reading those reponses can killfile on that address and still read
their regular posts.

But I don't think that's waht these people are actuallly interested
in. They keep engaging with Steve over and over again, which
suggests to me that this really isn't just about Steve's violation
of the newsgroup charter.

What it *is* about I really don't care.

No one has ever had any more right to be provoked by a poster than I
have, so I know what it's like to be constantly hit with something
that annoys you a lot. But the *only* answer when you can't make the
offender stop is to ignore him.

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

David W. Fenton wrote:

It depends on the poster. Worthwhile posters who show up regularly
in interesting discussions will tend to get out of my killfile
(though Lyle jumps in and out on a regular basis).

Actually, David, everyone you killfile is me. No, REALLY! They're just
various persona I assume to harrass and annoy you. You don't think
there's a real Arno or Keith or Randy, do you?

LOL!

That's you back in <g>.

--
Terry Kreft

"Lyle Fairfield" <ly***********@aim.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...

David W. Fenton wrote:

It depends on the poster. Worthwhile posters who show up regularly
in interesting discussions will tend to get out of my killfile
(though Lyle jumps in and out on a regular basis).

Actually, David, everyone you killfile is me. No, REALLY! They're just
various persona I assume to harrass and annoy you. You don't think
there's a real Arno or Keith or Randy, do you?

Oh, yeh, I'm well aware of that, as I said I've been trying to keep out of
this whole thing but I have been keeping an eye on it.

To be fair there was an attempt to use an alias but I think that got lost as
the tone of the affair dropped and dropped.

My belief is that people are people, and when someone is going out of their
way to be insulting and obnoxious it's difficult to stay on course. I just
think Steve did a very good job of provoking people to the point where they
lost sight of their objective.

Oh, I was here through all of that and you're right, ignoring is the only
(personally) successful strategy in the situation you found yourself in.
The major difference is though that I think you knew that virtually
everybody in the NG was disgusted by the actions, accusations and downright
libel of the other party and supported you.
--
Terry Kreft

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xn**********************************@127.0.0. 1...

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote in
news:iW********************@karoo.co.uk:
<SNIP> And, let me point out, the suggestion you made is exactly what I
recommended that they do (actually, I begged them to limit their
responses to a single post), and that was weeks ago.

One thing I'd add: if they'd use a FROM: address that's different
from their usual to do it, those of us who aren't interested in
reading those reponses can killfile on that address and still read
their regular posts.

But I don't think that's waht these people are actuallly interested
in. <SNIP>
No one has ever had any more right to be provoked by a poster than I
have, so I know what it's like to be constantly hit with something
that annoys you a lot. But the *only* answer when you can't make the
offender stop is to ignore him.

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

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ce********************@karoo.co.uk...

Could I suggest that the following would be a reasonable strategy.

When Steve posts in a thread where he is in contravention of the FAQ then
1) Make one response directly following his first post. (and I don't
mean one each !)
2) After that leave it for that thread
3) Do not get into "discussions" with him
4) Make a complaint to his ISP

Simple, effective, regains the moral high ground and stops the arguments
between your "group" and everynody else.

PRECISELY what has been done for the last couple of weeks. All 4
suggestions!

Don't shout, please.

This is precisely what hasn't been happening at all. It may have been the
intention but it has not been the practice.
--
Terry Kreft

"Randy Harris" <ra***@SpamFree.com> wrote in message
news:QN******************@newssvr13.news.prodigy.c om...

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Ce********************@karoo.co.uk...

Could I suggest that the following would be a reasonable strategy.

When Steve posts in a thread where he is in contravention of the FAQ then
1) Make one response directly following his first post. (and I don't
mean one each !)
2) After that leave it for that thread
3) Do not get into "discussions" with him
4) Make a complaint to his ISP

Simple, effective, regains the moral high ground and stops the arguments
between your "group" and everynody else.

PRECISELY what has been done for the last couple of weeks. All 4
suggestions!

"Terry Kreft" <te*********@mps.co.uk> wrote in
news:l2********************@karoo.co.uk:

Oh, I was here through all of that and you're right, ignoring is
the only (personally) successful strategy in the situation you
found yourself in. The major difference is though that I think you
knew that virtually everybody in the NG was disgusted by the
actions, accusations and downright libel of the other party and
supported you.

I don't think anyone supports Steve, either. But as with Don's
provocations, there's no action we can take to make it stop, so it's
better to ignore him.

Anything else is just an exercise in futility.

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

David W. Fenton wrote:

I don't think anyone supports Steve, either. But as with Don's
provocations, there's no action we can take to make it stop, so it's
better to ignore him.

Anything else is just an exercise in futility.

It's ridiculous to banter back and forth with him. It makes everyone
involved look stupid. My money is on a single message with a link to
Arno's tell-tale website.

rkc <rk*@rochester.yabba.dabba.do.rr.bomb> wrote in
news:Po*******************@twister.nyroc.rr.com:

David W. Fenton wrote:

I don't think anyone supports Steve, either. But as with Don's
provocations, there's no action we can take to make it stop, so
it's better to ignore him.

Anything else is just an exercise in futility.

It's ridiculous to banter back and forth with him. It makes
everyone involved look stupid. My money is on a single message
with a link to Arno's tell-tale website.

The single response was proposed weeks ago, yet those who have their
knickers in a twist over Steve have not actually followed that
advice (which at the time they all agreed was A Good Idea).

They just can't let it go, it seems.

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

I got pretty pissed off when I read this and drafted a nice long
sarcastic reply, but you know what - life is too short - so I'll simply say:

I don't know if I like you or not and it doesn't really matter. I read
and occasionally contribute to this forum to learn about MS-Access and I
value your contributions for technical insight without respect to what
kind of person you happen to be. Perhaps one day you will even learn
something from me (but probably not).

¡Felíz año nuevo!

Lyle Fairfield wrote:

Free is good.

In Canada

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association.

I choose to exercise my right to these freedoms.

On the other hand, when we post in CDMA we agree, or implicitly agree
to be bound by its charter. It states

The following are specifically forbidden in the CDMA newsgroup:

* Advertising of any kind, even if the product is free, a demo, or
otherwise. You may answer a question with a link to a commercial site
which pertains to the question. You may also add a phrase and/or link
in your signature.
...

The problem with this rule is that there is no mechanism to help us
decide if a commercial site pertains to a question.
Since my site is about Access and all posts here should be about Access
then, I suppose, I could argue that I could answer them all with a link
to my site.

I do not like sites which invite one to visit for a free utility and
also advertise a more advanced one which is not free. It reminds me of
"bait and switch" tactics.

And I do not like someone who has contributed almost nothing to CDMA
and who denigrates it. I do not like someone who e-mails implied
threats to me. In other words, I do not like you.

Is "shyster" too strong a word to describe someone who posts a link to
his/her own site to answer questions which may or may not clearly
pertain to the question? Is it too strong a word for someone who has
posted here only a few times, has answered almost no technical
questions (or none at all) and who has mentioned his free utility in
the majority of his posts?
I don't know. I do know that it reflects my opinion.

It's not really a commercial product, it's just a "packaging" of a
utility I use in my own consultancy. I do corrective updates when people
tell me about problems and enhancement updates when I need a new feature
for my own deployments. It's probably been 6 months since I posted an
update.

David W. Fenton wrote:

How long since you've updated it? Lyle has the opinion that old code
that works fine somehow "rusts" and should be replaced with new
code.