>Wrong. I brought up Shapes, and then explained them, privately, to Barbara to avoid disrupting the flow. I was there, primarily, because I knew you'd sneak in, find a way to be disruptive and/or look for ammunition to be a turd here on the main board. And I can see I wasn't wrong.
>

Wrong... Somebody mentioned parent-child data and Craig suggested hierarchical recordsets. The record shows that dialog. I will stand on that...


>What does that matter? This was an intro.

It was brought into the discussion. That means it matters...


>Your problem, John, is that you are a classless coward. You find ways to insinuate things and then cry like a baby when people call you on it. You manage to piss off far more people than you enlighten. You want to challenge people all the time and then back off when they take you up on it, claiming that you were misunderstood.
>

Me cry like a baby? I don't think so. Me back off? I don't think so. I offered to do a chat. I have been contacted privately by Cindy W. We are working on details.

Tell me JK, when have I ever backed down from a challenge. You should know by now that I put my money where my mouth is...


>There are a few people who yet buy into your BS, but I'm sure they will soon be enlightened.
>

When you needed help not so long ago, you bought into it, and as I recall, it helped you.

You're welcome.


>Craig tries hard to help people, and is a stand-up guy. The lectures are a volunteer effort. This was an intro, and --- as a fulltime attendee to the session which you were NOT -- I could see some people got a lot out of it.

I don't have a problem with Craig. All of you seem to be creating a problem when one does not exist.