Re: ODBC (was RE: Green screen - it's time is over ) -- MIDRANGE-L

> All I tried to do was point out that, given my experience in
both Y2K
> conversion and client/server architecture, I found that a
message-based
> client/server architecture was less affected by Y2K than a
non-message-based
> one.  I used a real example, real figures, and honestly
attempted to
> communicate.  You went off on three different tangents - your
machine
> language experience, having to review every program, and data
structures -
> none of which contributed anything to the discussion, and then
finally you
> were rather insulting on top of it.

Well, I'm sorry that you feel that something I said was insulting,
I am not trying to be insulting. You introduced the idea that your
software had been used by 200 organizations to convert for Y2K.
You wanted me to be impressed, I was impressed.

My central point is it doesn't matter if 15% of the programs have
to be changed, if ALL of them have to be reviewed for changes. So
that statistic asserted to prove this point doesn't seem to apply
to the discussion, if anything it proves the opposite point: that
client programs must be carefully reviewed when data structures
change. And the small facor of a data format change is a subset of
what is implied by an actual structural change.

> Zero communication in either direction.  Zero addition to the
conversation,
> zero addition to the knowledge base of this list (from either of
us).

I've found that my world works better if I don't make judgments
about what the other person, much less the entire list, is
thnnking or learning. Characterizaton of the process or the impied
motives or intent of the other party doesn't do much for me
either. When I do that I am generally avoiding the topic of
discussion itself.

>  These
> discussions add nothing for anyone.

They are adding something for me.  If it stimulates other peoples
thinking and responses, it is adding soemthing for them.
I don't know if it has done the later, but it has certainly done
the former. So this seems like a nonfactual statement to me. I
provide this information to you as a form of feedback on your
assertion. If you believe that assertion, it doesn't map to my
experience.

>  So, from now on, I suggest we simply
> ignore each other's posts.

well, at least you have said 'suggest'. My answer to your
suggestions is, of course you should do what seems best to you,
and I'll respect your power of choice and not think itis my place
to direct it.

>  For whatever reason, we seem not to have enough
> common ground to communicate effectively and that means that
we'll just be
> wasting time and bandwidth.

I think your communicaton with me might improve if you stopped
making assertions about 'we' and just speak for yourself.

> I'm sorry we haven't been able to discuss this productively.

I'm having a great time, your posts are helping me think and
discipline my thought. I'm finding the discussion stimulating,
entertaining, and thought provoking.

> Enjoy the rest of the weekend.  I'm off to watch my beloved
Bears.

Yes, it isn't about winning. It's about acting with passion,
honor, dignity, and respect for the other participants.

Brad Jensen
brad@elstore.com
Electronic Storage Corporation - LaserVault report archiving