Let's pick a replacement for this (Access) newsgroup

[Fred]

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.

[Access Developer]

Responded to this request in "microsoft.public.access". Had you posted via
newsreader-newsserver instead of the Microsoft online UI, you could have
cross-posted instead of multi-posting, so all the responses would be
proliferated to all the cross-posted newsgroups.
--
Larry Linson, Microsoft Office Access MVP
Co-author: "Microsoft Access Small Business Solutions", published by Wiley
Access newsgroup support is alive and well in USENET
comp.databases.ms-access

Post by Fred
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.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Fred
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.

Will the replacement one connect to Microsoft?

If not, why not continue with this one, which already has critical mass?

[Fred]

Because Microsoft is shutting it down.

Post by Steve Hayes
If not, why not continue with this one, which already has critical mass?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Fred
Because Microsoft is shutting it down.

Microsoft is shutting down its newsgroup servers, but as long as people
continue to use it it will be available from other servers.

So I think we should carry on using this one.

[John W. Vinson]

Post by Steve Hayes
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.

Post by Steve Hayes
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.

[Rick Brandt]

Post by John W. Vinson

Post by Steve Hayes
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.

Post by Steve Hayes
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.

[John W. Vinson]

Post by Rick Brandt

Post by John W. Vinson
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.

[Albert S.]

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.

Post by Fred
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.

[David W. Fenton]

Post by Albert S.
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!).

[Access Developer]

Post by David W. Fenton

Post by Albert S.
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

[David W. Fenton]

Post by Access Developer
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.

[Jeff Boyce]

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

Post by David W. Fenton

Post by Access Developer
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 W. Fenton]

Post by Jeff Boyce
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).

Post by Jeff Boyce
... 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.

Post by Jeff Boyce
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.

[Jeff Boyce]

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

Post by David W. Fenton

Post by Jeff Boyce
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).

Post by Jeff Boyce
... 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.

Post by Jeff Boyce
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/

[David W. Fenton]

Post by Jeff Boyce
I was just pointing out that the odds of getting heard and
understood go down if you yell ...<G>

I don't yell. I do use strong rhetoric.

[Keith Wilby]

Post by David W. Fenton

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?

[David W. Fenton]

Post by Keith Wilby
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.

[Jeff Boyce]

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

Post by David W. Fenton

Post by Keith Wilby
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/

[David W. Fenton]

Post by Jeff Boyce
Hold on, are you saying that if folks don't agree with your
approach, they wish to be treated like children?

No, only that the desire to be protected from strong rhetoric is
asking to be treated like less than an adult.

Post by Jeff Boyce
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?

I think that people who want to be protected from strong speech are
foolish, in that a lot of valuable discourse is couched in terms
that are less than gentile.

Post by Jeff Boyce
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?

When the situation warrants, I use strong rhetoric. Some people get
all flustered about that. I say they should get a thicker skin.

If they don't like my rhetorical style, they can killfile me. On the
other hand, if they find the *content* (as opposed to the style) of
my posts valuable, they can read past the style for the substance.

It's entirely up to them.

My criticism of sites like UtterAccess.com and MS's new
walled-garden support forums is that there is a chokepoint of
control that can be used to unfairly exclude on grounds that aren't
necessarily fair. That control is not possible with Usenet, and I
consider that a good thing that makes Usenet (despite the
possibility of wild-west unruliness breaking out) vastly superior.

[Fred]

A continuation of this is in a June 4th post in the "General Questions"
section.

[Keith Wilby]

Post by David W. Fenton

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/

I've said this many times, although not directly to you since I'm
supposedly in your KF - your knowledge of Access and many other topics
is to be admired and perhaps even envied, but the apparent chip on
your shoulder that manifests itself in what many perceive to be
extreme candour or condescending rudeness seems to get the better of
you far too often.

[David W. Fenton]

Post by Keith Wilby
I've said this many times, although not directly to you since I'm
supposedly in your KF - your knowledge of Access and many other
topics is to be admired and perhaps even envied, but the apparent
chip on your shoulder that manifests itself in what many perceive
to be extreme candour or condescending rudeness seems to get the
better of you far too often.

Yes, you've often said this.

I classify you as one of the children wanting to be protected.

Get over it or killfile me.