Heenan, Lambert
Lambert.Heenan at AIG.com
Tue Mar 30 12:36:41 CST 2004
A cad is someone you would not wish your daughter to marry, particularly if you are from the pink gin swilling, monocle wearing 1920's era upper class society, much written about by the like of P.G. Woodhouse and Dorothy L Sayer. cad (kàd) noun An unprincipled, ungentlemanly man. Lambert > -----Original Message----- > From: John Bartow [SMTP:john at winhaven.net] > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:10 PM > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > Ok, I was just going to avoid sounding stupid here but what the heck... > > What are Cads? > > John > > -----Original Message----- > From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > [mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Charlotte > Foust > Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:49 AM > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > ROTFL > > Could we get pennants made up for each side? > > Charlotte Foust > > -----Original Message----- > From: MartyConnelly [mailto:martyconnelly at shaw.ca] > Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 5:45 PM > To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > I was hoping for "Bounders" and "Cads" > > John Bartow wrote: > > >I guess maybe "nay-sayers" had a negative connotation to it. > > > >Next time I think I'll call the opposing views "Shirts" and "Skins". > >Maybe we'll get more people participating :o) > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of > >DWUTKA at marlow.com > >Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:51 PM > >To: accessd at databaseadvisors.com > >Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > > >Thank you. I've had my opinion changed on this list before too. And I > > >always learn something new in here. But I was wondering if I was > >starting to lose it, because I hadn't seen any solid 'evidence' from > >the nay-sayers. That's all I was asking for. Reproducable results. It > > >was very easy for me to reproduce the Date Table 'examples', and see > >that they are definitely more efficient then using calculations in a > >query, for sorting and searching. > > > >Just haven't seen anything like that with the Lookup topic. Which > >isn't surprising though. It is something that has been mystified in > >the 'relational database' world. It's in books, on the web, and thus > >is defended simply by pointing to other references. Those are the > >hardest walls to topple. It's a paradigm. > > > >Drew > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of John Bartow > >Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 3:16 PM > >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > >Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > > >I started the thread decidely not using lookup properties for the past > >5 years because of the overwhelming attitude among developers that it > >shouldn't be used. (IIRC that's when I first read Dev's "10 > >Commandments".) > > > >I had no "side" in this debate other than pointing out weaknesses I saw > > >in specific arguments (and being "cutesy" at times) Rarely is someone > >go to fully switch "sides" in a debate. (So I don't expect everyone to > >agree with > >me.) I believe that, based on this thread, the people who argued that > it is > >OK to use lookup properties have won the day. > > > >Unless someone comes up with a solid reason why it should never be used > > >I will not hesitate to use it again when the situation warrants. > > > >I challenge anyone to use facts to convince me otherwise. In fact I > >would very much appreciate it. And I'll buy you a few if you can do so! > > > >John "always open to the facts" Bartow > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com > >[mailto:accessd-bounces at databaseadvisors.com]On Behalf Of Charlotte > >Foust > >Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 2:44 PM > >To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving > >Subject: RE: [AccessD] Lookup Fields in Table Design > > > > > >Forget it. You insist that your opinion carried the day. Go right > >ahead and believe it, but don't expect everyone else to agree. > > > >Charlotte Foust > > > > > >-- > >_______________________________________________ > >AccessD mailing list > >AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > >http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > >Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > >-- > >_______________________________________________ > >AccessD mailing list > >AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > >http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > >Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Marty Connelly > Victoria, B.C. > Canada > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > -- > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > AccessD mailing list > AccessD at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd > Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com