About once a month, I go to that messy listserv email repository about AS, and for "January, 2015", I only got 3 or 4 messages listed (my own tries to get there had not been really successful, with my credentials, I can look into the mail addresses, but cannot post on my own), and so I read this thread

http://listserv.vt.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1501&L=ASKSAM-L&D=0&P=65

from (currently) last mail to first, in reverse order; of course, you should click at the link above instead, and read from start on.

There are some illusionary posts over there, incl. buying AS' source code (which is certainly the most incredible mess you will ever have encountered in your life), but that thread is a real gold mine of "practical insight", notwithstanding the fact that an incredibly dumb and erroneous "analysis" of AS' demise, by Mr. Gehrke (who in our time was very engaged in the defunct AS forum, and with the highbrow things that is; not to be mixed up with "Felix", who treated the things of lesser importance, or then, are they just one man? Since it lately seems that both "Flo" and "Felix" are now heavily touting MI, and for no good reason, and I'm positive about this last thing.) gets a rave appreciation from an incredibly uninformed amateur poster over there. (Just a hint: As I said before, AS' pseudo-fields are the only non-relational db way of checking for numeric RANGES anywhere, except for dtSearch, to my knowledge; cf. one of SEVERAL keywords within the same pseudo-field, also.)

Among all this incredibly (yes, it's fun to repeat this adverb over and over again) useful insight into real-life demands re IMS (and into the various degrees to which AS and some competitors failed and fail to fulfill these, by this (missing) element or another), there's a very amusing post by Mr. Klein who reminds us of the very specific psychological foundations of alleged "free-form db's", re AS, but it's clear as day that his explanation is right on spot, too, for correctly appreciating EN and its appeal and its success (cf. wht I said about EN just a day or two ago).

Now Mr. Zeoli posted twice (yet) in that thread, once before, and once after, the sensational post/mail I discovered there, and which, from a professional's pov, describes what I have/had elaborated (mainly here, and over at DC, too, lately, to some extent) from my theoretical pov: Go back to the file system, have all your metadata (i.e. in its broadest sense, incl. grouping and all - but that metadata only) in a db, and complete it all with a perfect search tool (which implies using dtSearch; and then, of course, optimize the integration of that search tool).

The post/mail I'm speaking of, is by Mr. Rodokanakis, and it's totally incredible (again) how far his experiences, and his conclusions born out of those, conclude with what I told you here (and over at DC). (I'm not giving the deep link to his post since as said, most posts in that extraordinary thread are worth your attention.)

I'm in no way insinuating Mr. Zeoli didn't want you to discover this total concordance, I'm just saying he should have been aware that most readers here (= interested in outlining / IM) will probably not often refer to a very specific and even obscure AS resource, simply because they do not suspect any information in such a place and which could be relevant either to their practical pc life, or then - what a proposterous, remote idea of mine! - their IM conceptionial ideas, and it's clear as day that AS thread, for once, comes with relevant details, and with (incredible, har, har) relevant material to think about: Shame on you, mister, to keep all that to yourself, by inadvertency!

22111, please stop that bullshit.

Hiding is nothing someone can do inadvertently - neither in English nor in German.

Franz

I have refrained from commenting, but this is ridiculous. I don't know where or how to begin.

Oh, forget it. This is not worth my time.

Except to say these things. Stephen is a respected participant in this forum whose opinions and guidance have been invaluable for us. I am tired of reading your perspective about how software is poorly written, badly (or falsely) marketed, too high priced, too many features, insufficiently functional, etc. Not to mention that software is now political. I admit these perspectives exist, but this forum is not about that (I think).

Jon

I took the liberty of editing the topic title.

I agree that it's not worth the time trying to maintain rational discussion with certain members.

Need to bubble up working on that feature to "mute user" again...

He adds nothing to this forum. Whatever he might know is buried deep within his bloated, incomprehensible posts. He attacks members who DO contribute and who DO possess useful information they generously share. Instead of working to become a valuable member of the forum, which I don't believe is possible, he tries to tear down other members (like Steve Zeoli) out of jealousy or some type of verbose psychosis. Worse, newcomers might think 22111 represents the rest of us, and decide not to return.

So why not just ban him and be done with it?

Thanks to my friends on this forum for coming to my defense.

I must admit it took me a while to figure out what the beef is that 22111 has with me. But I finally realized he or she is upset, apparently, that somewhere on the World Wide Web someone actually agreed with him (or her), that I read that post and then committed the sin of failing to notify this forum. Wow.

This view makes some audacious presumptions:

1. That I actually read 22111's posts carefully enough to commit them to memory. I don't.
2. That when I'm elsewhere on the web that I would recall anything 22111 has written. I don't.
3. That I would spend any time analyzing other forums for comparisons with 22111's writings. I don't.
4. That even if 1, 2 and 3 were true, that'd I'd feel an obligation to point comparable viewpoints with 22111 to this group. I wouldn't.

It may excite 22111 that someone, somewhere shares her or his opinion. But I could not care any less. Just for future reference.

Steve Z.

I'm not a fan of 22111's acerbic/super-critical writing style. But in this case, to be absolutely fair, I do think s/he was trying to make a joke.

It's not a very good one, unfortunately, but I don't think it was intended to sound as negative as many readers have clearly felt it is.

However, I think it does highlight the value of the brief, concise post (okay, I know I'm not always brief or concise, but hey!).

Best wishes to all,
Bill

Bill wrote:

(okay, I know I'm not always brief or concise, but hey!).

But you have no history of attacking or ridiculing members of this forum. :-)

22111, writing under various pseudonyms, has left a trail of chaos behind him on several forums that I'm familiar with. His mode of operation is always the same: make sarcastic, incoherent, unprovoked attacks upon other participants, then withdraw while the rest of us express annoyance or astonishment, and eventually after a few weeks of silence return with more of the same.