[AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question.

Unfortunately, in this case, yes.  Apparently she has
special needs for each of the tables being seperate. 
When I ask her why, I get the "not your concern or
department, do it the way you were requested" answer.

--- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> ...and if you went to your boss and told him that
> the proposed design would
> almost certainly result in more problems, not less?
> ...but that there is a
> much simpler way to do it that won't ...most Sr VPs
> don't get there by
> failing idiot detection tests :)
> 
> William Hindman
> <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want
> liberty in your lifetime?
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Frank Tanner III" <pctech at mybellybutton.com>
> To: "Access Developers discussion and problem
> solving"
> <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 2:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access
> Question.
> 
> 
> > In this case, I'm not the inflexible one.  The
> > Marketing department is.
> >
> > And since their boss is my boss, I lose....hehe
> >
> > Not all of us network engineers are inflexible.  I
> am
> > a firm believer in there being more than one way
> to
> > skin a cat.
> >
> > --- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net>
> wrote:
> > > ...nah ...I was frowning at what I kindly refer
> to
> > > as a "notwork" type
> > > design! ...sorry Frank but I go round and round
> with
> > > network engineers all
> > > too frequently ...I'd rather take on reworking a
> > > design by a newbie than one
> > > done by a network type ...most newbies can be
> > > reasoned with! :)))))))))
> > >
> > > William Hindman
> > > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want
> > > liberty in your lifetime?
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: "Drew Wutka" <DWUTKA at marlow.com>
> > > To: "'Access Developers discussion and problem
> > > solving'"
> > > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 1:53 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access
> > > Question.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Is there a reason you have a big frown after
> > > thinking I was on the Mark!
> > > > <evilgrin>
> > > >
> > > > Again I concur.  The only reason I can think
> of,
> > > off of the top of my
> > > head,
> > > > for 'moving' records around, is if you
> actually
> > > have mobile databases.
> > > Even
> > > > then, you would still want a 'master copy'
> sitting
> > > there, in case one of
> > > the
> > > > mobile ones crashed.  I guess that's half
> > > replication! <grin>
> > > >
> > > > Drew
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: William Hindman
> > > [mailto:wdhindman at bellsouth.net]
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:07 PM
> > > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem
> > > solving
> > > > Subject: Re: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly
> Access
> > > Question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ...I'm sorry Frank but this doesn't sound like
> > > much of a "reason" at all
> > > > ...you're violating data normalization rules
> all
> > > over the place and
> > > creating
> > > > tables where a simple flag field and query
> would
> > > be much more apropos ...I
> > > > realize that you may not control things as
> much as
> > > you'd like but this
> > > > sounds like something a network engineer would
> > > build rather than a
> > > database
> > > > designer ...I thought Drew was on the mark
> before
> > > and even more so now
> > > :((((
> > > >
> > > > William Hindman
> > > > <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you
> want
> > > liberty in your lifetime?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > > From: "Frank Tanner III"
> > > <pctech at mybellybutton.com>
> > > > To: "Access Developers discussion and problem
> > > solving"
> > > > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com>
> > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 12:55 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly
> Access
> > > Question.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Drew Wutka <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Just curious why you would want to
> physically
> > > 'move'
> > > > > > the data, instead of
> > > > > > just adding a field to track the 'status'
> of
> > > it.
> > > > > > You could have a byte
> > > > > > field where 0 is 'new', 1 is 'in use' and
> > > other
> > > > > > numbers could represent
> > > > > > where the data 'ends up' as you put it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Drew
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Frank Tanner III
> > > > > > [mailto:pctech at mybellybutton.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 10:41 AM
> > > > > > To: Database Advisors
> > > > > > Subject: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly
> Access
> > > > > > Question.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ok....Here we go.  Hang on to your
> > > > > > bloomers....hehehe
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am using a sort of "check out" system in
> > > order to
> > > > > > ensure that duplicates are not contacted. 
> It
> > > works
> > > > > > like this...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have a back-end database table that is
> my
> 
=== message truncated ===