[AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question.

But.....What happens to the data on the back-end
wasn't the initial thrust of my question.

My question was, "How can I peel off one record of an
external table by using it to create a temporary local
table and deleting the record from the back-end
table?"

--- William Hindman <wdhindman at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> ...well you're stuck ...me, I'd be out the door
> ...but then I have that
> choice :))))
> 
> 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 3:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [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.
> 
=== message truncated ===