[AccessD] Re: Yes. Another Silly Access Question

Someone did answer it.

Create table query for local table.
Delete query for original source.
Append query for final destination.
Delete object for local table.

Robert

At 06:39 AM 10/28/2003 -0800, you wrote:
>I am not the one that broug up "right way" vs "wrong
>way".  Hell, it wasn't even a part of my question,
>except in an incidental way.
>
>My actual question was never even answered because it
>got lost in all of the chaff.
>
>My question WAS how to peel off one record off of the
>top and make a table with just that data.  That
>simple.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Somewhere that
>all got lost in the "This is the right way to do it."
>
>--- "Robert L. Stewart" <rl_stewart at highstream.net>
>wrote:
> > My point was that further discussion is ridiculous
> > because nothing is going to change.
> >
> > At 06:19 AM 10/28/2003 -0800, you wrote:
> > >You seem to fail to understand.
> > >
> > >Right way, wrong way.  She's the one with my job in
> > >her hands.  I design it her way or I hit the
> > highway.
> > >You are under the, mistaken, impression that I have
> > a
> > >choice in the matter.
> > >
> > >--- "Robert L. Stewart" <rl_stewart at highstream.net>
> > >wrote:
> > > > Frank,
> > > >
> > > > This is still just a status.  But, it seems that
> > > > no one is going to convince you to design it the
> > > > correct way.  The correct way to avoid any
> > possible
> > > > duplication is to have them in the same table.
> > > > A bad design is a bad design.  No amount of
> > logic
> > > > you try to apply to it is going to change that.
> > > >
> > > > With your design, you are going to have to
> > > > synchronize
> > > > the future questionnaire people with the
> > completed
> > > > and declined when they either complete it or
> > decline
> > > > to complete it.  Where with a correct design, it
> > is
> > > > a simple status change.
> > > >
> > > > Good luck.
> > > >
> > > > Robert
> > > >
> > > > At 12:00 PM 10/27/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> > > > >Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 09:55:53 -0800 (PST)
> > > > >From: Frank Tanner III
> > <pctech at mybellybutton.com>
> > > > >Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes.  Another Silly
> > Access
> > > > Question.
> > > > >To: Access Developers discussion and problem
> > > > solving
> > > > >         <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> > > > >Message-ID:
> > > >
> > <20031027175553.64430.qmail at web13408.mail.yahoo.com>
> > > > >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > > > >
> > > > >Because the back-end tables are going to be
> > > > accessed
> > > > >by several people at once and we want to avoid
> > ANY
> > > > >possibility of duplication.
> > > > >
> > > > >The reason why we're moving them to different
> > > > tables
> > > > >after processing is for marketing to keep track
> > of
> > > > >different functions based upon the data in
> > tables
> > > > >specific to certain criteria.  IE.  Customers
> > that
> > > > >fill out a questionnaire go into one table,
> > > > customers
> > > > >that decline to go into another table, and
> > > > customers
> > > > >that would like to answer the questionnaire
> > later
> > > > go
> > > > >into yet another table.
> > > > >
> > > > >The front-end itself has to be as generic as
> > > > possible
> > > > >yet cover all contingencies based upon what
> > someone
> > > > is
> > > > >doing at a particular given point in time.
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >