Ma'am,
You're taking offense where none is intended. Have you never heard the
legend of El Zorro, the fox, considered a hero and a very crafty character
in California folklore? The term "crazy like a fox" means a very clever,
shrewd individual, one that others might not see how clever he is until he
runs away from the chicken coop with every chicken while the other animals
are still puzzling over how to get into the chicken coop and grab even one
chicken. When you post a question in the Access newsgroups and get quick
answers from the experts, you get to be the genius in your organization,
because you quickly solved the problem that no one else knew how to solve
and, had your co-workers been in your shoes, they know that they would have
still been struggling over it long after you figured it out and went on to
the next problem.
Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me
It may be crystal clear to you, but the terms XP2002 and XP2003 don't
clearly define what you think they do. If you read as many posts from new
posters as we do, you'd find that way too often the subject line doesn't
match the content of the post. XP means Windows XP to most people, not
Office XP. People occasionally refer to Access 2003 as part of Office XP,
which is obvious to us that it's incorrect, but not to those people. 2003
generally means Windows 2003 Server, since far more people are connected to
Windows 2003 Server on their networks than are using Access 2003.
I'm not a genius nor do I have enough Access experience to know what I'm
talking about according to you.
You knew exactly where to come to get instant answers without having to pore
over thick books, or do days or weeks of trial and error to make discoveries
about how Access really works -- and you think I'd put you in the "not a
genius" category? Hardly. I wish I'd known about this resource when I was
struggling as an Access developer. You found the newsgroups precisely when
you could benefit from them. I certainly didn't. I think people who know
how to use the newsgroups to make themselves more productive at their jobs
and make themselves look like geniuses are brilliant.
As for not having enough Access experience to know what you're talking
about, you already realize that you didn't articulate yourself very well in
your first post but, as with most things, we get better with practice, and
you'll do a better job next time.
Just like you are certain that I am not experienced at Access,
You may have experience with Access but, like most people, you need help
straightening out User-level Security. When you solve your problem, you'll
realize that you received good advice, but at this point in time, it's hard
for you to see how the current path is going to get you to your destination.
That's what I was referring to when I mentioned, "And when you gain more
experience in Access, you'll realize that the explanations you were given, .
.. . were helpful," even though you dismissed the advice on first sight.
You haven't posted many questions in the Access newsgroups, so no, you're
not an experienced poster yet. Experienced posters know how to post
well-written questions, know why they shouldn't multipost, and know why they
shouldn't be rude. Most questioners get quick, accurate, helpful responses
and have a pleasant experience in the newsgroups. If you aren't getting
that same type of experience, then please see
http://www.mvps.org/access/netiquette.htm for some helpful hints.
and being male! That's right, idiot I am a male.
Perhaps you think that a self-respecting man behaves illogically, makes a
mountain out of a molehill, complains of being a victim ad nauseam,
redirects blame, jumps to conclusions, assumes others can read his mind,
nitpicks and nags on and on, and analyzes every detail of an encounter
trying to draw some kind of meaning by reading between every line -- and
doesn't even notice that he's doing any of these things. Your claim just
isn't believable because of your efforts thus far:
1.) "While it is true that I did use some interesting terminology to
describe my situation, I did so with the idea that I would receive feedback
from PROFESSIONALS who would understand what I meant."
Translation: "You didn't satisfy me, but you should have because you knew
what I meant!"
Interpretation: Notice the artful redirection of blame, the careful
avoidance of admission of "I may have made a mistake in my description," the
expectation that the intended audience has mind reading capabilities, the
subtle jab that the intended audience is unprofessional, and the indicator
where an inflection of the voice would emphasize the jab so that there can
be no doubt: it's a jab.
Conclusion: Woman.
2.) "Wouldn't it make sense if I reference 2002 or 2003 anywhere within my
question that it's obvious what I'm talking about? It was clear to me . . .
"
Translation: "I'm going to point out the part that I didn't obfuscate so
that I can pretend that I was unreasonably attacked, and this was the issue
that I was attacked for."
Interpretation: Notice the avoidance of the terms XP2002 and XP2003 in this
explanation by the author, the only terms that were pointed out as confused
expressions.
Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.
3.) "My problem with you started . . . "
Translation: Nag.
Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
speaker doesn't notice.
Conclusion: Woman.
4.) "Instead you chose to belittle me with your 'perhaps you don't have
this or perhaps that.'"
Translation: "You're victimizing me."
Interpretation: Notice the taking out of context the guesses for the
definitions of the author's made-up names ("XP2002" -> "perhaps you don't
have either Access or Microsoft Office. . . ") in order to pretend that the
author is being ridiculed with some other term, such as, "perhaps you don't
have money . . . ," or "perhaps you have VD. . . ," et cetera, so that
people will take pity on this undeserving "victim" when they, too, jump to
the author's conclusions.
Conclusion: Stretching the truth to extract pity from others by jumping to
illogical conclusions.
5.) "This entire dispute . . ."
Translation: "I have to escalate these posts to a level where people will
notice me and my complaints."
Interpretation: Making a mountain out of a molehill.
Conclusion: Woman.
6.) "Your personal attacks on me, my surname and my abilities are
intolerable."
Translation: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I refuse to believe that
your compliments are intended as anything but offensive."
Interpretation: Notice the only attacks in this thread are the name
calling, which only come from the author who wants to claim to be the
"victim."
Conclusion: Convenient amnesia.
7.) "You should not be allowed to treat people the same as you have me.
You are not what I would consider a professional."
Translation: "Off with his head!"
Interpretation: Notice the unmentioned future opportunities to practice on
the author until the author eventually becomes a satisfied customer.
Conclusion: I feel very fortunate that I have you to practice on to improve
my people skills. Don't be surprised if the other regular responders allow
me to be the sole responder to all of your posts, so that I get as much
practice as possible.
8.) "You are, in my humble opinion, . . ."
Translation: More nagging.
Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
speaker doesn't notice.
Conclusion: Woman.
9.) "But you wouldn't know that because you aren't the kind . . . "
Translation: Still nagging.
Interpretation: Like all nagging, the rest gets tuned out and only the
speaker doesn't notice. And when you're done nagging, you can add that I
squeeze the toothpaste from the middle of the tube to my long list of
shortcomings.
Conclusion: Woman.
10.) "Perhaps you're just a jerk . . . "
Translation: "You're a jerk."
Interpretation: Notice the word choice. Men have a far more colorful
vocabulary when speaking to the people who tick them off. Guys in Southern
California don't tell others that they're jerks, but the women do.
Conclusion: Woman.
11.) "People come here looking for help not to be belittled . . ." and ". .
.. Instead you chose to belittle me"
Translation: "You made me feel inferior."
Interpretation: Notice the word choice of "belittle." Notice the complaint
of "feelings" instead of a physical or verbal reaction to an imagined
slight. Notice the lack of avoidance of the label, "crybaby," which would
be considered a weakness in a man, because the author has no fear of
receiving such a label.
Conclusion: Woman.
12.) "That's right, idiot I am a male."
Translation: "You should know I'm not going to give in one inch and admit
that you're right about anything, not even my gender!"
Interpretation: Again, notice the word choice. Notice the failure to claim
identity, "I'm a man." Women may not realize that there's a very important
distinction, but men from Southern California aren't going to miss this.
Conclusion: Woman.
13.) "I am typically not one to indulge in disputing over the internet . .
.. "
Translation: "I want to present my case in the court of public opinion
because I've been wronged!"
Interpretation: Notice the bizarre overreaction in both of the author's
responses in this thread. Classic sign of PMS.
Conclusion: Woman.
And I could go on, but as we can see, there's no evidence that you've
reacted or behaved like we would expect a man to react or behave. My
advice, ma'am, is to eat some chocolate. It won't fix anything, but it'll
make you feel better.
But if you want to fix the problem, have a user with Access 2003 installed
on his workstation, and who can't open the forms, sign into the secured
Access database application, and press <CTRL><G> to open the Immediate
Window. Paste the following into it, then press <ENTER>:
?syscmd(acSysCmdGetWorkgroupFile)
.. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
?currentdb().Name
.. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
?currentuser()
Record all three values and then have the same user sign into a workstation
that has Access 2002 installed and where the user can open the forms
successfully. After opening the secure database application, have the user
press <CTRL><G> to open the Immediate Window. Paste the following into it,
then press <ENTER>:
?syscmd(acSysCmdGetWorkgroupFile)
.. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
?currentdb().Name
.. . . then paste the following into it, and then press <ENTER> again:
?currentuser()
Again, record all three values. Now compare these values with the ones
recorded from the Access 2003 workstation. If they match, then compare the
mapped drives used in the paths on both workstations to ensure that they
point to exactly the same networked server and directory.
You'll find that the Access 2003 users who can't open the forms in Access
2003 -- but can in Access 2002 -- don't have the same permissions granted on
these forms because they 1.) aren't using the same workgroup file, or 2.)
they aren't opening the same database file, or 3.) they aren't signing in
as the same user. So yes, it really is that easy to find and fix the
problem and make yourself look like an Access genius in your organization,
since everyone else is still stumped.
And if you research the newsgroup archives, you'll find lots more tips and
tricks that make you look like an Access genius every time you use them.
And if you take the time to research these tips and tricks and save the best
ones for later, that would be "crazy like a fox." And if you think this is
another personal attack, eat some more chocolate.
HTH.
Gunny
See
http://www.QBuilt.com for all your database needs.
See
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com for Microsoft Access tips and tutorials.
http://www.Access.QBuilt.com/html/expert_contributors2.html for contact
info.
