Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup
in [Getting Started]
|
Prev: Ribbon
Next: Store info for reports from switchboard
From: Keith Wilby on 4 Jun 2010 05:25 On 3 June, 02:01, "David W. Fenton" <XXXuse...(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote: > =?Utf-8?B?QWxiZXJ0IFMu?= <alber...(a)albert.microsoft.com> wrote innews:A05FDCBD-5923-4317-970F-735A7CDECD6A(a)microsoft.com: > > > 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?
From: David W. Fenton on 4 Jun 2010 14:14 "Jeff Boyce" <nonsense(a)nonsense.com> wrote in news:OlE1Ys0ALHA.3608(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl: > 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/
From: David W. Fenton on 4 Jun 2010 14:16 Keith Wilby <keith.wilby(a)baesystems.com> wrote in news:6b28e193-f469-4307-ad6e-7ffaaa768bb8(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com : > 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/
From: Jeff Boyce on 4 Jun 2010 14:18 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" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9D8D8E8D4C0F4f99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.98... > "Jeff Boyce" <nonsense(a)nonsense.com> wrote in > news:OlE1Ys0ALHA.3608(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl: > >> 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/
From: Jeff Boyce on 4 Jun 2010 14:21
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" <XXXusenet(a)dfenton.com.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9D8D8EE3BF34Bf99a49ed1d0c49c5bbb2(a)74.209.136.98... > Keith Wilby <keith.wilby(a)baesystems.com> wrote in > news:6b28e193-f469-4307-ad6e-7ffaaa768bb8(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com > : > >> 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/ |