Drew Wutka
DWUTKA at marlow.com
Wed Oct 29 14:38:48 CST 2003
LOL. Actually, I have the only password in the company that no one else knows (though my co-worker may know it.) It's l0phtCrack proof, and I have all of my Data drives on this machine set so only my account can read them. My boss has asked me why a few times, and I just stick to one story. I don't want anyone to goof with any of my current projects. Simple story, and it works. He knows he doesn't have anywhere near a strong enough grasp of what I do to go mucking around in my data files. Drew -----Original Message----- From: Frank Tanner III [mailto:pctech at mybellybutton.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:04 PM To: Access Developers discussion and problem solving Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access Question. Sure. I can see it now.... "No, Ms Senior Vice President. You cannot view the work that I have done. I know you're my boss and the second in command of the company, but you're not authorized to see it." I'd have a job for about as long as it took them to fill out the insubordination write-up and termination papers. --- jeffrey.demulling at usbank.com wrote: > > Make sure they cannot do a code review by making an > MDE and then do NOT let > them near your source MDB. > > > > > > "Frank Tanner III" > > > <pctech at mybellybutton.com> > To: "Access Developers discussion and problem > solving" > Sent by: > <accessd at databaseadvisors.com> > > accessd-bounces at databasead > cc: > > visors.com > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly > Access Question. > > > > > > > 10/29/2003 01:47 PM > > > Please respond to "Access > > > Developers discussion and > > > problem solving" > > > > > > > > > > > > > It works like a charm...... Presupposing they don't > do > some sort of code review. > > Even a novice can say, "Hey! We told you to make > three tables. There's only one here." > > --- Drew Wutka <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote: > > Works like a charm, don't you think? > > > > Drew > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Charlotte Foust > > [mailto:cfoust at infostatsystems.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 10:54 AM > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem > solving > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > > Question. > > > > > > That's the approach I use as well, Drew. I give > > them the result they're > > looking for and hide the details so they don't > > realize I did it right > > instead of the way they wanted it done. > > > > Charlotte Foust > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Drew Wutka [mailto:DWUTKA at marlow.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 9:54 AM > > To: 'Access Developers discussion and problem > > solving' > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > > Question. > > > > > > I hear ya, on your situation. I've been in the > same > > boat many > > times....fortunately, the people I work with don't > > have the first clue > > of what I do/know, so I just do it my way anyways. > > <evilgrin> > > > > Drew > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Frank Tanner III > > [mailto:pctech at mybellybutton.com] > > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 1:27 PM > > To: Access Developers discussion and problem > solving > > Subject: RE: [AccessD] Yes. Another Silly Access > > Question. > > > > > > To quote my DI when I was in the military..."Mine > is > > not to question why. Mine is but to do or die." > > heheheh > > > > Sometimes, regardless of how much you try to talk > > sense into people, they still wanna do what they > > wanna > > do. And Marketing wants to do what they want to > do. > > > > Since their boss (The company Sr VP) is also my > > boss, > > I lose....hehehe > > > > --- Drew Wutka <DWUTKA at marlow.com> wrote: > > > 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 > === message truncated === _______________________________________________ AccessD mailing list AccessD at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/accessd Website: http://www.databaseadvisors.com