>That's an idea, I would probably taken the USE AGAIN option as I am against using Local Views over our LAN, it tends to slow the app down considerably.
>
>However, I'm still considering the 3 tables, because when you make a change in, say, the 3rd table, it will be related to the other 2 tables, so a record change in table 3 will then reflect in table 1 & 2 - this will make relationships easier, rather than having related records all in the same table.
>
>Does that make sense.
>
>Thanks
>Kev

As I said in my earlier post, if the table structure is always to be the same for all three, then I'd use one table - and use Cetins suggestion of USE ... AGAIN.

If the table structures will diverge, then definetly use three seperate tables.

Who is this other person, whose perspective you are considering? A future developer doing maintenance? If so, then system documentation should solve this issue.