Access and Word Automation
Ron
files. Each document is less than a half page. I have the paths to
all the documents stored in an Access97 table along with the
subject of each document. I want to create a routine in Access
where I can select one or more of these documents by subject in a
form and through Word automation compile and save a master
document from the selected documents. It would be like appending
each selected document to the bottom of the previously selected
document. I would also like to sequentially number each new
document in the master document.
I can create a routine to select the documents. I need help on how
to compile them into a master document.
Thanks for all help.
Ron
Mike Preston
ConfirmConversions:=False, Link:=False, Attachment:=False
Neil Ginsberg
come here with an alias, trying to get some help with your stolen project?
You might not have scruples, but you sure have balls, I'll say that.
To the NG: This fellow hired me to do a project, and, when the project was
90% completed and that 90% complete database was submitted to him, he
informed me that he didn't want to complete the project and wanted his
deposit back, even though we had an hourly contract and the amount of hours
already put into the project *and* delivered to him equaled three times his
deposit.
He cited that the project was late, though we never agreed upon a delivery
date, only an estimated date, and it was only one business day past that,
and a couple of items in the database that didn't work as he expected
because the specs he gave me caused them to be that way (e.g., have a list
of paragraphs and subparagraphs; when a paragraph is selected, display
associated subparagraphs; when a paragraph is placed into the document,
remove it from the paragraph list; but if it's removed from the paragraph
list, then you can no longer display associated subparagraphs, except
immediately after paragraph is selected). The database was *extremely*
sound, and there were no problems except for design issues.
All in all, this fellow is corrupt to the core, and his message here is
evidence that he's using the work that was done for him without his having
paid for it. DON'T HELP THIS GUY.
My advice to anyone in the newsgroup if he approaches you to do work for him
is to ignore that request.
His name is STEVE SANTUS, and he goes by the business name PC DATASHEET
<pcdat...@penn.com>. He is using an alias here to avoid detection, Ron
<rla...@bigfoot.com>. WATCH OUT FOR THIS GUY!
If anyone wants to see the work that was done, e-mail me and I'll send it to
you.
--
Neil Ginsberg
http://www.nrgconsult.com
Ron <rla...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:XYXu6.329$8Y6.5...@nntp3.onemain.com...
Neil Ginsberg
Please see my NG post under "SCAM ALERT: Access and Word Automation."
Thanks,
--
Neil Ginsberg
http://www.nrgconsult.com
Mike Preston <mbpa...@nospam.pacbell.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3abc56ad.415509571@localhost...
Lyle Fairfield
it was a presumption of vulgar familiarity), I have Steve in my
XNews score file at -999; which is as low as my scores go.
"Neil Ginsberg" <n...@nrgconsult.com> wrote in
<99lk8u$bfd$1...@sshuraaa-i-1.production.compuserve.com>:
--
Lyle
http://www.cyriv.com/
Neil Ginsberg
By the way, what's an XNews score file?
Thanks,
--
Neil Ginsberg
http://www.nrgconsult.com
Lyle Fairfield <lyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns906FAB47Aly...@24.9.0.131...
Mike Preston
Like Lyle, I'm sorry for your troubles. I don't really know how
effective a boycott can be in the newsgroup, though, as it is
relatively easy to set up a new identity if one wants to ask a
question.
This has been my argument all along against the plonkers. But maybe
they are right. At least folks are forced to go through extra effort
to take advantage of the free advice that so generaously cascades from
this newsgroup.
A word to the wise about contracts and agreements, though, seems to be
the best fallout from your message.
And if he is asking a question that *I* can help answer, Neil, rest
assured that his proficiency with Access is sufficiently low that he
will no doubt not be able to traverse that last 10%.
mike
Neil Ginsberg
> they are right. At least folks are forced to go through extra effort
> to take advantage of the free advice that so generaously cascades from
> this newsgroup.
Yeah, all one can do is try.
> And if he is asking a question that *I* can help answer, Neil, rest
> assured that his proficiency with Access is sufficiently low that he
> will no doubt not be able to traverse that last 10%.
>
No doubt that's true. I suppose that's a little comfort in all of this.
Thanks,
Lyle Fairfield
coded score for each on the basis of them being from some
particular poster or being on some particular subject or
whatever; For instance I have "From: Meyer" (and several other
regulars) scored at 1000, the highest score I use (except for
Cyriv Associates, who get a 9999). So postings from Arvin can
be easily identified cuz they have a nice bright blue 1000 in
the score column, or sorted to appear at the top of the list of
messages by sorting desc on score. One could do the same thing
for "Subject: SQL" or whatever.
"Neil Ginsberg" <n...@nrgconsult.com> wrote in
<99lv1a$fdh$1...@sshuraac-i-1.production.compuserve.com>:
>Thanks for the note, Lyle. It's good to know that,
>somehow....
>
>By the way, what's an XNews score file?
--
Lyle
http://www.cyriv.com/
Larry Linson
approval to clients with whom you are not very familiar only MDE with a
timeout after a reasonable trial period. Fortunately, in that unpleasant
experience, the prime contractor for whom I was working had an inkling that
the client might try to get the database and then withhold payment, so had
me do just that.
They complained strongly when I delivered only an MDE, but I just referred
them to the prime contractor. Surely enough, they thought they at least had
a working copy that they could use, though they knew they couldn't update
it, and when he proved adamant about delivering source until paid in full,
they got huffy and refused to pay. But, thirty days after I delivered, they
got an unpleasant surprise when they tried to open the app, a message "Your
trial period has expired. To obtain the password, contact <name of the prime
contractor>."
I think I gathered both the date information and password from enough
different pieces in the MDE that they or anyone else would have a very
difficult time breaking the code. The reports that they'd have sent to their
customers had a date, there was significant date processing, and a
reasonably large amount of code, so it would take someone quite a while to
re-create it, even though the tables were unsecured (after all, it _was_
their data).
By that time, they and the prime contractor were so mutually ****ed at each
other that they never got the source, he never got paid, and, er, well, I
didn't, either, for about the last month's worth of work. But, at least, I
had the satisfaction of knowing that those scuzzy types didn't get all my
work for the pittance they'd paid as a deposit.And, I did know the prime
contractor had already paid me nearly twice what they had paid him, and that
his paying me for that last month might have been the "straw that broke the
camel's back" of his business.
I have, BTW and FYI, just copied the pertinent e-mail addresses and a note
on the application to Yet Another Yellow Sticky to be applied to the bezel
of my Monitor. When I do that to "twits", it will finally age off; when I do
it to "scuzzes" and "cheats", it is a permanent embargo.
Neil Ginsberg <n...@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:99m0dq$ebc$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Steven R. Zuch
<larry....@ntpcug.org> wrote:
>From similar unpleasant experience, I learned that it is wise to deliver for
>approval to clients with whom you are not very familiar only MDE with a
>timeout after a reasonable trial period. Fortunately, in that unpleasant
>experience, the prime contractor for whom I was working had an inkling that
>the client might try to get the database and then withhold payment, so had
>me do just that.
When we place timeouts in our projects, we make it very clear to our
client/customer that we have a right to prevent them from using our
software if they refuse payment. A while back ago, I read about a
company suing their software vendor for locking them out of the
software as a result of non-payment. In this case, it was non-payment
for substantial upgrades. The company sued for damages, and won :(.
Of course, I believe what you did is above board (and would do the
same), but we should be cautious about placing these lockouts in our
products.
Steven Zuch
Peter Miller
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 01:59:29 GMT, st...@nospam.com (Steven R. Zuch)'s wrote in
comp.databases.ms-access:
>When we place timeouts in our projects, we make it very clear to our
>client/customer that we have a right to prevent them from using our
>software if they refuse payment. A while back ago, I read about a
>company suing their software vendor for locking them out of the
>software as a result of non-payment. In this case, it was non-payment
>for substantial upgrades. The company sued for damages, and won :(.
It was standard that timebombs did not have good legal standing - God knows why
- and numerous cases were decided on behalf of the software customer over the
developer, even when the customer had clearly violated the sales/licensing
contract. However, it is now a little different. The state-by-state passing of
UCITA laws affects the use of time bombs, and generally supports the rights of
developers to use them. You need to check into this in your own state, but the
general rule of avoiding timebombs on contracted software no longer holds in
numerous states. Again, you need to check into this yourself before making any
decisions.
Peter Miller
PK Solutions
_____________________________________________________
For Microsoft Access related tools and services,
including our Data Recovery Rescue Service for
Microsoft Access, please visit our site (below)...
_____________________________________________________
www: www.pksolutions.com
e-mail: pmi...@pksolutions.com
Tel: +1 (800) 987-7716 Fax: +1 (619) 839-3900
_____________________________________________________
Don P. Mellon
I always include a start-up message with a warning to the effect that the
database is for demonstration purposes only, that it is not to be used under
actual business conditions, and that any data stored in the database will be
lost when the demo period expires. The last part, about the data being
lost, is true: I delete all tables on expiration day, along with all
queries.
One thing the original poster ought to be really careful about is calling
someone a deadbeat in print. Even though truth is a defense to a liable
action, many courts hold such behavior to be outrageous and permanently
damaging to one's business reputation. The rational is that, if someone
owes you money, the proper thing to do is to take legal action to recover
the amount owed.
An example, taken from a student law text: Dr. Jones, the local physician,
had his car fixed at Bob's Auto Repair. Dr. Jones lost a lot of money in
the stock market and never paid his bill at Bob's. So Bob placed a sign in
his shop's window that said: "Doctor Jones is a deadbeat who owes me $610!"
Dr. Jones can sue for damage to his reputation, even though what Bob wrote
was true.
(Note, also, that Bob had a "mechanic's lien" on the doctor's car, either
under statutory law or the common law. When Bob gave the car back to the
doctor, Bob effectively gave up (released) the lien. However, if Bob could
somehow get his hands on the doctor's car again, in a peaceful manner, Bob
could reassert his mechanic's lien and keep the car until the doctor paid
up.)
"Peter Miller" <pmi...@pksolutions.com> wrote in message
news:dhatbt8aviaumg6tn...@4ax.com...
Pete B
storage capacity? I much prefer this over date schemes because it can
be done with no need for encryption techniques or passwords, merely
the use of an MDE. Would that fall in this same category of legal
limbo, I wonder.
It only makes sense to provide notification of the limitations upon
initial delivery of the product, though. I can see where "time bombs"
could be a real problem, especially if a customer entered into a
contract with their own customer under the presumption of no
limitation, but found themselves locked out and unable to complete
their obligations because of what they viewed as a valid legal dispute
with the designer of the product. Let us not forget that there is
always a possibility that you, the designer, are indeed at fault
(legally anyways), even though you feel it is the customer who is the
source of the problem. And whether we like it or not, refusal of
payment for non-delivery of service or goods is a common practice.
Stop and think about what you are advocating here; how would you like
it if an aircraft manufacturer built in a "time bomb" in their
aircraft to make sure the airlines purchasing them paid the bill. No
problem for you, maybe, but if I'm the one taking the trip to Denver
when the bill falls due... :=(
In fact, usually in such cases a judge will issue an injunction
forbidding either party from making any changes to the status quo
until the dispute is resolved. And it need not even involve a judge;
for example, your credit card vendor cannot enter a bad credit claim
against until the dispute over charges that you refuse to pay is
settled one way or another.
--
Pete B
"Peter Miller" <pmi...@pksolutions.com> wrote in message
news:dhatbt8aviaumg6tn...@4ax.com...
>
Steven R. Zuch
Actually, we do use time bombs, and do not believe that there was a
"general rule of avoiding" them; but we clearly inform our clients in
our contract that we will "prevent them" from using the software if
payment is not made.
For upgrades, we tell the client to make a backup of the original
program and database before upgrading. If they don't pay, they can
resort to going back to the original program.
Of course, more difficult questions come when a client partially pays,
or is paying over a period of time. Can one prevent the use of a
program if partial payment is made? These are legal questions which
require legal expertise, and as you said, specific to the state(s)
that we are involved in.
But from a practical view point, we have never needed to rely on a
time bomb to force payment. The few receivables that we have written
off relate to our financial services, not software development.
The best defense against being stiffed is to know your client. If we
know that our client can be a credit problem, we get paid in advance,
or turn the project down.
Steven R Zuch
Cogent
On Sun, 25 Mar 2001 18:35:22 -0800, Peter Miller
<pmi...@pksolutions.com> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 01:59:29 GMT, st...@nospam.com (Steven R. Zuch)'s wrote in
>comp.databases.ms-access:
>
>>When we place timeouts in our projects, we make it very clear to our
>>client/customer that we have a right to prevent them from using our
>>software if they refuse payment. ......
Lyle Fairfield
mdb. I've never been cheated.
I don't hide my email address, but get very little spam.
I answer email questions, but have had very few (maybe no)
problems with that; actually I've had a few positive
experiences there.
Should I change my ways?
st...@nospam.com (Steven R. Zuch) wrote in
<3abf5df7....@news.westnet.com>:
--
Lyle
http://www.cyriv.com/
Don P. Mellon
Do not change your ways. It is better to assume people will do the right
thing. Otherwise, you turn into a paranoid nut case.
"Lyle Fairfield" <lyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns907065D1Fly...@24.9.0.131...
Don P. Mellon
"Don P. Mellon" <wig...@3rivers.net> wrote in message
news:PXJv6.1549$W51.1...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
Danny J. Lesandrini
Steven R. Zuch
wrote:
>I never take precautions with time or size constraints in an
>mdb. I've never been cheated.
>
>I don't hide my email address, but get very little spam.
>
>I answer email questions, but have had very few (maybe no)
>problems with that; actually I've had a few positive
>experiences there.
>
>Should I change my ways?
>
First issue, no. As I mentioned, we never been stiffed on software;
and the time bombs have never been required. But, I sleep better at
night :(
On the second issue, your lucky. It took only several postings the
the usenet groups and I was flooded with crap. I have a hotmail
address that I give out for registrations, etc; but since I never
check it, I don't give it out here.
On the third issues, no. I don't have that problem because I don't
have any answers.
Steven
Steven R. Zuch
registration in Office XP; after a number of uses - it dies unless you
register it. And registration is only good for two installations.
Steven
Rick Brandt
we included a third party software package that was basically a DVD based
library of service manuals.
This package was sold on an annual subscription and it did "time-out" such
that after one year had passed and you had not purchased the next year's
package it would simply stop working.
To me this is akin to an encyclopedia salesman entering your home and
confiscating the set of books you bought last year because you chose not to
buy the annual "yearbook", but they seem to be able to get away with it.
Naturally since the package came with our equipment we catch most of the
complaints form the customer.
This example at least does not involve any information that the user had
entered themselves and perhaps that is where the legal line is drawn. I
would think that even if you disable the abilty to use the software that
there should be some mechanism for retreiving your own data.
"Steven R. Zuch" <st...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3abf5df7....@news.westnet.com...
Peter Miller
On Mon, 26 Mar 2001 09:18:58 -0600, "Pete B" <peteb...@Home.com>'s wrote in
comp.databases.ms-access:
>Stop and think about what you are advocating here;
Um, Pete, you missed the point. I'm not advocating anything here. All I was
doing is pointing out that the legal standing is shifting, and that developers
should review where they stand.
Personally, I don't enter into contracts with customers that I do not trust, so
this problem doesn't arrive. One very good customer did part ways with us
recently, because we were becoming more and more integrated in our endeavors,
and both companies realized that the fit was not really where either of us
wanted to head. Payment was never a dispute, and our only desire was to jointly
determine what was best for both sides. We still provide meta-consulting
services, but they use another option for general development needs. This works
well for them, since they pay lower rates for what is after all standard
development work, and we only become involved on the more intractable issues,
which is what we do best.
Why bring this up? Well, my point is that a contract does not protect you from
bad clients - it simply gives you a little more ammunition to go after them and
to protect your rights. By all means, develop and use solid contracts as part
of your business practice, but never mistake a good contract for a good
customer.
Steven R. Zuch
wrote:
>My company sells Windows based Automotive Service Equipment and for a while
>we included a third party software package that was basically a DVD based
>library of service manuals.
>
>This package was sold on an annual subscription and it did "time-out" such
>that after one year had passed and you had not purchased the next year's
>package it would simply stop working.
>
>To me this is akin to an encyclopedia salesman entering your home and
>confiscating the set of books you bought last year because you chose not to
>buy the annual "yearbook", but they seem to be able to get away with it.
>Naturally since the package came with our equipment we catch most of the
>complaints form the customer.
>
I think the difference is up front disclosure and honesty with your
client. If as part of the initial agreement, you tell your customer
that continue operation of the software is contingent on continue
payments, then the customer can decide if that is an acceptable
business arrangement. This is different than insidiously implementing
a time bomb scheme. In effect, one is "leasing" the software rather
than selling it.
>This example at least does not involve any information that the user had
>entered themselves and perhaps that is where the legal line is drawn. I
>would think that even if you disable the abilty to use the software that
>there should be some mechanism for retreiving your own data.
>
I agree with you. The data belongs to the client and should always
be available. I think this is more of an issue when using a
proprietory database, than storing the data in Access/Jet. We allow
our clients full access to their data (no pun intended).
Steven
I think the difference is up front disclosure and honesty with your
client. If as part of the initial agreement, you tell your customer
that continue operation of the software is contingent on continue
payments, then the customer can make the decision if that is
acceptable. This is different than insidiously implementing a time
bomb scheme
Pete B
All I'm trying to do is point out that many issues are involved in
this, including considerations of whether a developer's actions can be
used against him/her. My feeling is that it is better, as you say, to
avoid the situation in the first place by only dealing with trusted
clients, but in the real world it sometimes does not work out that
way.
Although I stated a preference for using data-limiting vs
time-limiting, or even using functionality-limiting (for example, no
persistent storage at all, or no output other than to screen, or else
"stamping" all I/O with some telltale signature), I really think it is
preferable to use none of those. The occasional loss of compensation
for work may be painful, but it sure as heck beats losing time in
court or in a lawyer's office.
If someone stings you, well, that does not mean others will do the
same. Usually this stuff only becomes necessary when we talk
shareware, because most companies have reputations to uphold, just
like us, and prefer to play fair and ethically, settling things
reasonably for all concerned.
--
Pete B
"Peter Miller" <pmi...@pksolutions.com> wrote in message
news:fs7vbto4sd1brhgk9...@4ax.com...
David W. Fenton
<zYyv6.54641$_46.22...@e420r-atl2.usenetserver.com>:
>An example, taken from a student law text:
Alles kommt klar!
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
David W. Fenton
<fs7vbto4sd1brhgk9...@4ax.com>:
>Why bring this up? Well, my point is that a contract does not
>protect you from bad clients - it simply gives you a little more
>ammunition to go after them and to protect your rights. By all
>means, develop and use solid contracts as part of your business
>practice, but never mistake a good contract for a good customer.
The other thing is:
GET PAID UP FRONT.
I'm serious.
The compensation for most of my contracts is in thirds, 1/3 up
front, 1/3 at halfway point, and 1/3 upon completion. The first 1/3
finances the first half of the develpment (i.e., pays me a
reasonable wage for that work should the client abandon the
project), and the 2nd 1/3 finances the 2nd half. The client has a
feeling of security of holding the last 1/3 hostage to
satisfaction, and I have the security that I won't be working for
nothing.
Everybody wins.
Pete B
example, most building contractors work if you contract to get work
done on your property. You usually pay on a scale like 30-30-30-10,
where the first 30% is due at start, 30% due at the halfway point, the
last 30% is due on completion of the job, and the final 10% due when
the contractor finishes all customer claims of incomplete or incorrect
work. A very good, standard way to do business.
--
Pete B
"David W. Fenton" <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote in message
news:9070C3F1Fdf...@isp-west.usenetserver.com...
Neil Ginsberg
future situations where I am unsure. Gives everyone security: the client,
that the work was done, and the consultant, that he'll get paid or the
client can go no further. Thanks for the tip!
> I have, BTW and FYI, just copied the pertinent e-mail addresses and a note
> on the application to Yet Another Yellow Sticky to be applied to the bezel
> of my Monitor. When I do that to "twits", it will finally age off; when I
do
> it to "scuzzes" and "cheats", it is a permanent embargo.
Thanks! It is satisfaction to know that perhaps something would be done, and
it's definite satisfaction to someone who would have gotten screwed by this
sleezeball.
Regards,
Neil
(By the way, we'll still have to do Starbuck's sometime.)
Neil Ginsberg
> lost, is true: I delete all tables on expiration day, along with all
> queries.
Wow! You're tough!
> One thing the original poster ought to be really careful about is calling
> someone a deadbeat in print. Even though truth is a defense to a liable
> action, many courts hold such behavior to be outrageous and permanently
> damaging to one's business reputation. The rational is that, if someone
> owes you money, the proper thing to do is to take legal action to recover
> the amount owed.
I'm not worried. The truth is the truth. Though the example you cite may be
valid, in this case, warning others in a professional forum against falling
into similar circumstances wouldn't fall into the same category as putting a
sign in one's window. But I appreciate the warning, though.
Don P. Mellon
Deleting data and rendering the database useless: This is fair and square
because my customer knows beforehand that the application is a demo, that it
will expire, and that it is not for use in actual business operations. If
they approve of the demo, and pay me the outstanding balance, then they
promptly receive a permanent copy; otherwise, I go back to work and make the
changes they want.
Publishing remarks detrimental to someone's business reputation: I am sure
there are very fine distinctions involved here. For example, states often
publish the names of parents who have failed to pay child support,
so-called "deadbeat dads" ("deadbeat moms" never being heard of), and
sometimes publish the names of delinquent taxpayers. I would guess many of
these people suffer damage to their business reputations, but since these
publications are "merely" public records showing a name and an amount, no
legal action can result.
"Neil Ginsberg" <n...@nrgconsult.com> wrote in message
news:99paie$olo$1...@sshuraab-i-1.production.compuserve.com...
Neil Ginsberg
> because my customer knows beforehand that the application is a demo, that
it
> will expire, and that it is not for use in actual business operations. If
> they approve of the demo, and pay me the outstanding balance, then they
> promptly receive a permanent copy; otherwise, I go back to work and make
the
> changes they want.
I'm sure it is fair and square. Didn't imply otherwise. And, as long as you
and your clients are fine with it, then there's no problem. For me, I'd be
afraid or a miscommunication which might lead to bad feelings when data is
irretrievably lost, even if it was supposed to just be for test purposes.
But whatever works for you and your clients is fine.
OM
"negative" is the more common result, or always the result, when the reverse
is actually the truth. The big problem is not that rip-offs occur, but that
the reporting of them skews the perception that they are common.
OM
(just my 20 satangs worth...)
"Don P. Mellon" <wig...@3rivers.net> wrote in message
news:y_Jv6.1552$W51.1...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...