From: Rick Brandt on
John W. Vinson wrote:

> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 20:03:55 +0200, Steve Hayes <hayesstw(a)telkomsa.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Will the replacement one connect to Microsoft?
>
> THIS one won't, that's for certain.
>
> The Microsoft forums will be run on Microsoft's own hardware, so yes; they
> won't propagate to USENET however.
>
>>If not, why not continue with this one, which already has critical mass?
>
> People coming from the Microsoft "get online help" buttons in the programs
> will not know about these newsgroups, and will not have any way from
> within Microsoft's software to get to them, so these newsgroups will
> probably dwindle to a small subset of sophisticated, experienced users,
> contending for bandwidth with spammers and trolls. The bulk of the "new
> questions" will, I fear, go elsewhere.

I for one expect to see the quality of topics rise considerably.


From: John W. Vinson on
On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 04:44:22 -0500, Rick Brandt <rickbrandt2(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:

>> People coming from the Microsoft "get online help" buttons in the programs
>> will not know about these newsgroups, and will not have any way from
>> within Microsoft's software to get to them, so these newsgroups will
>> probably dwindle to a small subset of sophisticated, experienced users,
>> contending for bandwidth with spammers and trolls. The bulk of the "new
>> questions" will, I fear, go elsewhere.
>
>I for one expect to see the quality of topics rise considerably.

Sure; it'll deprive a lot of new users of the program of the tutelage from
those experts who abandon these groups, though. They'll be pulled into the
Social forum and it's to be seen who will be providing help there.
--

John W. Vinson [MVP]
From: Access Developer on
"David W. Fenton" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> 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


From: David W. Fenton on
"Access Developer" <accdevel(a)gmail.com> wrote in
news:86p30eFr7fU1(a)mid.individual.net:

> 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/
From: Jeff Boyce on
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" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9D8C88DA9AF8Df99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.91...
> "Access Developer" <accdevel(a)gmail.com> wrote in
> news:86p30eFr7fU1(a)mid.individual.net:
>
>> 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/


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Ribbon
Next: Store info for reports from switchboard