So what are you trying to say? Don't you use "joinerfields" like the rest of us. I've incorporated them into my latest version of the dwim() and intended() functions, which are really now what used to be called classes. I have renamed them classlesses.<VBG>
John -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Whil Hentzen (Pro*) Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [NF] Idiots are everywhere So we're at the local user group meeting last Saturday, and I ask the group how many of them are programmers, and how many are admin-types. Some raise their hands at the first; others are the second. Then I ask how many are developing Web apps vs fat-client apps. I'm quickly corrected by one politically correct individual that the proper term is 'rich-client', not 'fat-client'. OK, I stand corrected. How many are developing Web apps? Some raise their hands. How many of you are developing rich-client - you know, desktop - apps. Others raise their hands. One fellow then says, "What about me? I don't do any of those." Oh, you do embedded apps? No, I do business applications. Inventory, accounting, payroll, that sort of thing. "So those would be desktop or rich-client apps." "No, they're business applications." You will not be surprised to find out that this was the same guy who invented the concept of "joiner fields" a few years ago. Whil [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
